a aetna eseneicnesspoenoescenaioe maaan saaoenencaDacs aaeasnerasn shen oaneranarennesnasenstenmenenanaoen=ees 
pet ae en engender a coe eS Toe ere oman Ae eaters eter omar one | 
erro oeoenievtannoe oaoieomneementneeninnraap tepinlnaeee pinata patna ane eern toe ae 
tae wm ae Sumer tran cotuner acetate yaa SGN NTE re NNO ee CRN H Canam ON 
Mat en a eR nn a YR oe LE SN Name NRA N EN nenieener eee AS Fa 
one enemas ante non ee wane re 


OA. ale ee © 
ne Gee oh re 
ae ae 


‘, 
its 


THE 


ERECHTHEUM 


MEASURED, DRAWN, AND RESTORED 
BY 


GORHAM PHILLIPS STEVENS 


TEXT BY 
LACEY DAVIS CASKEY JAMES MORTON PATON 
HAROLD NORTH FOWLER GORHAM PHILLIPS STEVENS 


EDITED BY 


JAMES MORTON PATON 


PUBLISHED FOR 
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS 


HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 
1927 


COPYRIGHT, 1927 
BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN 
SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS 


All rights reserved 


PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS — 
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S. A. 


TO THE MEMORY OF 


JAMES RIGNALL WHEELER 
THEODORE WOOLSEY HEERMANCE 


PREFACE 


Next to the Parthenon, the Erechtheum is undoubtedly the most famous of the buildings 
erected on the Athenian Acropolis during the fifth century, B.c. As the Parthenon repre- 
sents the highest development of the Doric order, so the Erechtheum is commonly held to 
be the most perfect example of the Ionic, and its forms have been imitated again and again 
by modern architects. To record these forms exactly, to collect the epigraphical and 
literary testimony relating to the building, and by interpreting the evidence thus presented 
in the light of modern archaeological and historical knowledge, to reconstruct, so far as 
possible, the original appearance and the history of the temple is the purpose of this volume 
and the accompanying plates. 

To the making of this book many men have contributed, and a brief account of its origin 
and development will serve to explain the form in which it is now published. A fuller ac- 
count is preserved in the American School at Athens. The original notes made by Mr. 
Stevens, his drawings for the figures in the text, and negatives of many of the photographs 
used for the other illustrations are also deposited there. The original drawings for PLATES 
I-XXXII are in the School of Applied Arts of the University of Cincinnati. 

The inception of this study of the Erechtheum is due to Dr. Theodore W. Heermance, 
Director of the School from 1903 to 1905. In the autumn of 1903, he suggested to Professor 
James R. Wheeler, the Chairman of the Managing Committee, that the plan adopted by the 
Greek authorities for a thorough reconstruction of the North Portico of the Erechtheum 
offered an opportunity for a detailed architectural study of the building. Professor Wheeler 
enthusiastically endorsed Dr. Heermance’s proposal and asked the officers of the Carnegie 
Institution whether they would grant the funds necessary to send a competent architect to 
Athens. The Carnegie Institution at once approved the plan, and at the suggestion of Mr. 
Charles F. McKim of the well-known firm of McKim, Mead and White, Mr. Gorham P. 
Stevens was appointed the first Fellow in Architecture of the School on the grant of the Car- 
negie Institution. Mr. Stevens reached Athens in November, 1903, and his drawings for 
the plates which were originally planned (PLATES I-X XX) were exhibited at the School 
during the Archaeological Congress in Athens in the spring of 1905. His last notes on his 
study of the building during this period were handed to Dr. Heermance at the end of July, 
1905. 

As the work was originally planned by Dr. Heermance, the volume of text was to con- 
tain a fairly full description of the temple, serving as a commentary on the plates; notes on 
the methods of construction employed by the builders of the Erechtheum and a brief his- 
tory of its later transformations; some account of the descriptions by early travelers and 


vii 


viil PREFACE 


of the more important modern discussions; a brief chapter on the sculptured decoration; and 
the text of the inscriptions relating to the building, with a commentary. The section on the 
sculpture was from the beginning entrusted to Professor Harold N. Fowler, Annual Pro- 
fessor at the School in 1903-04, and his chapter, in its first form, was completed before the 
end of 1905. The remaining four sections Dr. Heermance planned to write himself, and 
during the whole period of Mr. Stevens’s residence in Athens, they discussed together the 
many problems involved, and Dr. Heermance prepared a preliminary draft of the first sec- 
tion, arranged and classified a large number of notes for the second, and collected some 
material for the third. 

The sudden death of Dr. Heermance in September, 1905, made necessary a complete 
change of plan. In October of that year, Dr. Lacey D. Caskey was asked to undertake the 
section on the building inscriptions, and the greater part of this chapter was completed in 
1908, although much of it has since been rewritten. After the appointment of Mr. Bert H. 
Hill as Director in 1906, the members of the School devoted a considerable part of their 
time to the study of the building, and this study resulted in the publication of several 
papers in the American Journal of Archaeology and elsewhere, all of which are duly noted 
in the following pages. But apart from these activities, no progress was made during the 
next five years in the actual preparation of the text. 

In 1910, the Managing Committee of the School, acting on the recommendation of the 
Publication Committee, appointed Dr. James M. Paton as editor of the book and also 
asked him to prepare a chapter on the history of the Erechtheum; and during the next few 
years the scheme of the work was considerably modified. It was decided, among other 
changes, to include a fairly complete bibliography of the published material relating to the 
Erechtheum, without, however, attempting to discuss the many theories that have been 
proposed about the building. 

Between 1910 and 1914 considerable progress was made in preparing the text in accord- 
ance with this scheme. Chapter I was practically completed and the chapter on the sculp- 
tures entirely revised. But the outbreak of the war made effective codperation difficult, 
and between 1914 and 1920 little was accomplished except the drafting of Chapter II and 
a part of Chapter V by Dr. Paton. During all the years from 1905 to 1920, moreover, fur- 
ther work of restoration on the building itself under the direction of Mr. Balanos, the Greek 
architect in charge, and the careful investigation of the foundations carried on by the 
American School necessitated constant changes both in the plates and in the text. Not 
until 1920 could the final work of revising and completing the various parts be seriously 
undertaken. 

This account of the genesis of the book will explain why no definite author can be named 
for the first two chapters. The foundation of Chapter I is the first draft of Dr. Heermance, 
based on Mr. Stevens’s notes. But this has been much enlarged and completely rewritten by 
Dr. Paton, with the help of criticism and correction by Mr. Stevens and Dr. Hill, whose sug- 


PREFACE 1x 


gestions have sometimes been adopted verbatim. Chapter II was written by Dr. Paton 
from Dr. Heermance’s rough notes, but here again the statements in the text have been 
revised by Mr. Stevens and Dr. Hill. In fact throughout the entire work Dr. Hill by his 
thorough knowledge of the building and his sound judgment has given invaluable assist- 
~ ance to the editor. The Appendices and the Indices have been prepared by Dr. Paton. 

The authors wish to make grateful acknowledgment to the Greek Government, Mr. N. 
Balanos, and the Ephors in charge of the Acropolis for their liberality in granting unre- 
stricted access to the building during and since its restoration and thus affording oppor- 
tunity to study all its details, as well as for their kindness in offering every facility for the 
examination of the fragments of the sculpture; to Professor W. B. Dinsmoor for the draw- 
ings which are published in PLarr XX XIJ and in the text, for his contribution in Additional 
Note III, and for his assistance in verifying measurements and in other ways; to Dr. C. W. 
Blegen, for help in preparing the chapter on the sculptures and in obtaining many photo- 
graphs; to Dr. L. B. Holland, for the use of several drawings; and to Professor A. B. West, 
for preparing Additional Note IJ. They are also much indebted to the following institutions 
and individuals for their courtesy in communicating material and their ready permission to 
photograph or copy whatever was desired for use in this volume: The British Museum, and 
especially Mr. A. H. Smith, Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities; 
the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington; the Royal Institute of British Archi- 
tects; Sir John Soane’s Museum; the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the Bibliothéque 
Nationale; the Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Beaux-Arts; the Louvre; Stadtbibliothek, 
Strasbourg (in 1914); the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut; the Biblioteca Nazionale 
di San Marco, Venice; Messrs. Maurice Skene-Tytler of Keith Marischal and Felix Skene 
of Send, Woking; Geheimrath Ludwig Pallat, Berlin; Professor Kurt Miller, Gottingen; 
and Professor Richard Forster, Breslau. 

PAu Vie Ge BAUR, 
GEORGE H. CHASE, 


Haroitp N. Fow er, 
Publication Committee. 


NA 


ay, 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS . 
List oF ILLUSTRATIONS . 
ABBREVIATIONS 


CHAPTER I 


DESCRIPTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


DESCRIPTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM . 


I. Foundations and Crepis 
II. The East Facade 
Ill. The Ceiling of the East Per as 
IV. The East Wall ; 
V. The North and South Walls 
VI. The West Facade 
1. The Lower Wall, 56. — 2. The ‘West Taga ene hs Lone Ww all me the Eutab- 
lature; (A) The Greek Construction, 60; (8) The Roman Alterations, 66. — 3. The En- 
Eiiature, 69. 
VII. The Roof of the Main Ree 
VIII. The North Portico . 
Poa tne North Door .-... 
X. The Crypt beneath the Necth Date 
XI. The Porch of the Maidens 
XII. The Pandroseum 
XIII. The Cecropium . . . 
XIV. The Interior of the Huge 


1. Remains of Earlier Structures, 137. — 2. The East Cella: ‘ee The Hast Cross-W all, 146: 
(Bp) The Level of the Floor in the East Cella, 150.— 3. The Western Part of the Temple, 
(aA) The West Cross-Wall, 151; (B) The Central Part of the Building, 156; (c) The 
Prostomiaion and Erechtheis, 161; (pb) The Niche, 171; (©) Temporary Repairs before the 
Roman Restoration, 178. ; 


CHAPTER II 
NOTES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


NovTes ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM . 
I. Varieties of Stone : 
II. Dressing of the Surfaces 4 Gongs 
Ill. Hoisting, Setting, and eee Stones . 
IV. Finishing Operations . 
List of Inserted Pieces, 207. 


xi 


vil 
Xl 
XV 
XXlil 


104 
110 
119 
127 
137 


181-231 
181 
182 
188 
199 


Xll CONTENTS 


V, a. Refinements in Construction 
V, B. Irregularities and Extravagant Goucterction 
VI. Color age 
VII. Foot: Variations 
VIII. Ancient Repairs and Restoretone 
Note A: On the Cement Used in the Porch of the ee 295, — ontis B: oF the Wood 
Used in the Empolia of the East Portico, 226.— Note C: On the Traces of Color Observed 
by Early Travellers, 227. 


CHAPTER III 


THE SCULPTURES OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


By HAROLD NORTH FOWLER 


THE SCULPTURES OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


I. The Caryatids 
II. The Frieze ; 
Description of the Pease of fe ee 246. —~ ay eran Doubtful a Ae Trageaeee 
270. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


By LACEY DAVIS CASKEY 


Tur INSCRIPTIONS . 


I. The Report of 409 2 BC Wire ae VID . 
The Decree of Epigenes, 279. — The Report of the Coninteictee First Prythegy 409/8 8. B.C., 
280. Text and Translation, 286. Commentary, 298: — A, (1) State of the Building at the 
Southwest Corner, 301; (2) Ornamental Details not Wiktshed) 308; (3) List of Surfaces that 
are Unsmoothed and of Bases and Column-Shafts that are Unfluted, 308; (4) The State of 
the North Portico, 314; (5) The State of the Porch of the Maidens, 314; B, Stones on the 
Ground, 314. Fragments of Specifications, 319. Commentary, 320. 


II. The Accounts of 409/8 s.c. (Inscriptions VITI-XII) . 
Text and Translation, 326. Commentary, 342; — Work on the Friede, 342; Woodstrs 354: 
Work on the Cornice, 356; Work on the Badinionta: 359; Work ona Ceiling 362; Roof one 
struction, 368; Grifles, 370. 


III. The Accounts of 408/7 s.c. (Inscriptions XITI-X XV) ars 
Text and Translation, 378. Commentary, 402;— (1) Summary of Accounts of Sixth to 
Ninth Prytanies, 404; (2) Work on a Ghifered Cae 408; (3) The Painting of the Inner 
Epistyle, 410; (4) The Channelling of the East Columns, 411; (5) Work on the Reliefs of 
the Frieze, 413. 


IV. Fragments of Accounts Later than 408/7 s.c. (Inscriptions XX VI-X XVIII) 
Text and Translation, 418. Commentary, 422. 


214 
216 
220 
222 
223 


232-276 


232 
239 


277-422 
279 


322 


370 


416 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER V 


THE HISTORY OF THE ERECHTHEUM 
By JAMES MORTON PATON 


Tur History oF THE ERECHTHEUM 
I. The Site of the Erechtheum 3 
II. The Erechtheum as a Greek Tenia. : 
1, The Building of the Erechtheum, 452. — 2. The perme of the Perici 456. - ca 3. The Firs 
of 406 B.c., 459. — 4. The History of the Temple and the Description of Pausanias, 478. 
III. The Erechtheum as a Christian Church 
IV. The Erechtheum as a Turkish House 
V. The Erechtheum as a Ruin . ; 
VI. The Reconstruction of the Rrechihenen: 


APPENDICES 


A. THe ERECHTHEUM IN WRITERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 
A. Before 1750 ae 
I. Cornelio Magni, 585. — II. Sir Francis Vernon, 585. — III. Jacob ae 585. — IV. Chee 
Wheler, 586. — V. Giacomo Milhau Verneda, 586. — VI. Rinaldo de la Rue, 586. — VII, a. 
Alessandro Locatelli, 587; VI1, ps. Galleria di Minerva, 587. — VIII. Francesco Fanelli, 587. 
— IX. John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, 588. — X. Richard Pococke, 589. — XI. Charles 
Perry, 590. 
B. From 1750 to 1803 


XII. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, 590. — XIII. Richard Chandler, 590. — XIV. Louis- 
Frangois-Sebastian Fauvel, 591. — XV. Edward Daniel Clarke, 596. — XVI. Lord Elgin, 
597. — XVII. John Lewis Wolfe, 598. 

B. NOovres ON THE SOURCES FOR THE LATER HISTORY OF THE ERECHTHEUM . ‘ 
I. The Venetian Sources, 601. — II. Fourmont, 604. — IJ. Sandwich, Pococke, oa 605. 
—IV. Stuart and Revett, 607. — V. Le Roy, 608. — VI. Fauvel, 609. — VII. Gell, 612. 

C. CHRONOLOGICAL List oF SouRCcES LATER THAN 1750 

Index of Proper Names in Appendix C, 643. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 
I. The Supports of the jeri ates Bean eh 154) 
II. The Date of Inscription I (p. 280) . 
III. Inscription X XIX (p. 442) 


INDICES 


I. Table of Inventory Numbers of the Fragments of the Frieze . 
II. Proper Names in the Inscriptions 
Ill. Greek Words nae ; 
IV. Greek and Latin Authors aunt ingen Geoney 
V. General Index . 


xiil 


423-581 
424 
452 


492 
523 
536 
560 


585-600 
585 


590 


601-613 


614-645 


646-650 
646 
647 
648 


653 
654 
657 
660 
662 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


Unless otherwise stated the illustrations are from drawings by G. P. Stevens and, in Chapter IV, by L. D. 
Caskey, or from photographs taken by the American School at Athens. The negatives of the photographs by 
Donald Macbeth of London, Berthaud Fréres of Paris, Oreste Bertani of Venice, and R. Rohrer, Ioannes 
Andreou, and Ant. Petritsis of Athens are also the property of the School. 


FIGURE 


a 


oR oo bo 


mmr Oru Wall, logking east 4 2 fe oS Se er ee ee 
Foundations of North Wall, james from west ontaaber 2, 1922) . 


. North Face of westernmost Inserted Poros Block ........ bistcn idee ee A a 


Foundations at Southeast Corner, from inside... . . . Signe gece Sed es ey 


Foundations of South Wall, eastern half, inside: elevation. ...........-+-+++4.. 
From a drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor. 


Remains of Prehistoric Wall below South Doorway, from southwest . .... . Sue ee 
From a photograph by L. B. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 13, fig. 10. 


Area north of the Erechtheum: (A) From northeast, as cleared in 1887; (8) From west in 1914 
7, A, from a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute. 


East Portico: Graphic Method of constructing the Ionic Volute ..... . BT Om ate "a 
East Portico: South exterior Volute, fourth Column from south Ate cee Geet 
East Portico: Capital of the south Column ........ Pe ea EN hi cyt RE ee oe eer te 


PCr ng U1 COp.OF ATCHILTAVE: 2 54.05 2 Sk Ne Pa a we eG 
DE ETEL at) OF GOP OF lrieze ae ee eo ee 
eeeerreetaren nicic of Raking Comice’ . . . oS. ee Re ee ee 
. East Portico, Ceiling: Interbeams with elbow behind short beams ..........--.-., 
. East Portico, Ceiling: Interbeam from above columns ....... . Dea eink Cup tet ne 
pment Foruco, Ceiling: Fragment of Coffer (Roman)... .. 2... 6 ee ee es 
. East Portico: North Anta, showing the peculiar shape given to the ivthontate: isometric 


East Portico: Bases of south Conmminrang mite fron: Souths, 95 were eas Sed bee Mo 
eerie onrially testored 2. 2. J eS, SO ge EE Ss i Bas A) a Rae a eg 


NR REELS FOOTINGLTIN art 2 yb KU sede oe Ap eee es os es Bae eo we ee 
Beemer riertone © > IsOMetric 5 4 ee we ae a eS bie ates vale 
mast Wall: Relation of Stone F to north Anta: isometric . - 2. 2... .. 2. 6 ee ee te 
. East Wall: Under side of Block from north Anta, restored: isometric. . .......- . he 
eM tC Cs > ISOTHEEIIG | piace) coos kk a Ce PS ee ge igs eek ee 
eecetey ait Leit end of Lintel from.south Window . -..... =... - +: +s + +4 es ewe 
meee WwW all: Leit upper corner of north Lintel) 2. 2.) wk ete ee es 


East Wall: Above: Elevation of left half of Lintel of south Window, with indication of the axes of 
ornament. Below: Plan of top and bottom of Jamb of Window... ........-.-.-. 


Sehaat Wall: Left end of Lintel from south Window: tsometrie . .. .. . - + 2 ss se ee 
naw 1 O0r and. Windows Testored. «5. 5... e ho 6 eR nl ck Re ee ke ee 
. South Wall: East End, inside, from northeast (1922)... ..-.-- ++ 2 eee eee ee 


From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 


. South Wall, Courses 11-15: isometric, Section through east Orthostate and Steps. Plan of same. 


Form of Clamp used to attach lower course of backing to Orthostates ..........- 


. North Wall: Upper Courses behind North Portico, from south. ......--+--++++:+-: 
fees Walls Epicranitis at west.end (1922) 21.5 23). eg ek ay eee ey 


From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens 


xv 


Xvl 


38, 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


. North Wall: Plan of top of Epieranitis behind North Portico <2... {9s 20 505) ee 
. Block of Epicranitis with Roman dressing on back and cuttings for hook clamps in top: isometric. 
. Plan of West End of Erechtheum north of West Door. >... . 3... . . . eee 


From a drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor. 


. Northwest Corner of Erechtheum from south (March, 1926) .......2......4.<.. 


Lowest step of West Wall and Paving Slab of Pandroseum north of West Door (March 12, 1918) 


. Section through small Doorway in North Portico, looking east. . ............446, 


Angle of northwest Anta and North Wall, (oareee 8 and 9, showing Block two courses high in Anta, 
end of Greek Lintel, and top of west Jamb of North Door: isometric. <4 i7 e 


. West Facade: Plan of top of Column Bases and of Moulded Course between them . . . . é 
. West Fagade: Base of north Column and adjacent blocks of Moulded Course, before roaboneeee 


OF 1904 (Le a gh wo ple we le cee A nn 
West Facade: North Face of south Anta, Courses 8-11 . ... . . . . Se Geko eee 


. West Facade: Plan of Column, intercolumnar Wall, and south Anta, restored according to the 


original Greek construction » 5... 04. eww vo 8 sw a's) 


. West Facade: Curve of Entasis of Roman engaged Columns .......2.2..«...... 
. West Facade: North Intercolumniation, Courses 5-12, as rebuiltin 1904. .......2.2.. 
. West Fagade: South Block of Roman Architrave. Above: Isometric drawing. Below: West Face 


of Block, showing Turkish Inscription (1925). . . .. 4... 4 1 ws, 3 9 
From a photograph by Ant. Petritsis, Athens. 


. West Facade: Plan of top of existing Roman Architrave ... . .-. 4 2.) | ee 
. Section looking West, showing the arrangement of the transverse beam and of the timbers of the 


roof over the west rooms: restored , <2...) .4s 2%. yom 6 0 oe 


. Lion’s Head from Sima of Main Building . . . .-. . 5.24 3 4 ee 
. North Portico: Curve of Entasis of Columns =... . . . « «5. 4 a yp 
. North Portico: West half of Capital, third Column from west on north side. ......... 
. North Portico: Inner Angle of Capital of Column at northwest corner ......2.2..... 


North Portico: Abutment of East Architrave against north wall of Main Building: isometric. . . 


. North Portico: East Side of Roof from south, modern rafters partially laid .......2... 
. North Portico: Northeast Corner of Ceiling, from above ... .. . » \ syne annem 
. North Portico: East Portion of Ceiling, from below (March 26,1909) ............, 
. North Portico: Painted Ornaments of Ceiling. (a4) Maeander surrounding Coffers. (8) Egg-and- 


Darton Mouldings of Coffers .. . 5 s4. 2s 6 3 es we nc 


. North Portico: Opening in Ceiling and Roof ..,....... . « . 5 eee 
. North Portico: Greek Cornice Blocks, used by Romans, but not replaced in 1903. ....... 
. North Portico: Graphic Method of constructing the parabolic curve of Soffit of Cornice 

. North Portico: Another Method of constructing the curve of the Soffit of the Cornice (cone 


PIMDATES) Sk wg Ee gate) ime ts Og nee Ne 


3. North Portico: Plan and Section of Roof: restored. ... .. =... . . . oun 


North Door: Special forms of Clamp and of Dowel used to secure Jambs ........... 


. North Door: West upper Corner: from a drawing in the British Museum. .......... 


From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 


. North Portico: Opening in Pavement and Altar of the Thyechoiis: restored. (a) Plan. (B) Sec- 


tion, looking east. (c) Section, looking south .. . >... . 2 9) er 


. North Portico: Opening in Pavement (1922). (a) From west. (8) From northwest ..... . 


From photographs by I. Andreou, Athens. 


. Porth of the Maidens: Plan of Staircase: restored... . 4. > . . - «teen 
. Porch of the Maidens: Ceiling from below (March 26,1909) .. . . | . 2 2) eee 
. Poreh of the Maidens: Interior from east (1922) ...... . . +. » 1) een 


From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 


. Pandroseum; Northeast Corner (April 18,1914) . .. . . 2.) .*. 2s 0 


52 
53 
50 


57 
58 
60 


61 
62 


63 
64 


65 
67 
68 


71 
72 


77 
78 
81 
83 
83 
86 
88 
88 
90 


21 
92 
93 
94 


94 
95 
98 
100 


106 
108 


111 
LEV 
118 


72. 


73. 
74, 
75. 
76. 
ge 
78. 
79. 
80. 
81. 
82. 
83. 
84. 
85. 
86. 


87. 
88. 
89. 
90. 


Se 


92. 


93. 
94. 


95. 


96. 


97. 


98. 
99. 
100. 


101. 
102. 
103. 
104. 


105. 


106. 
107. 
108. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XvVll 


Pandroseum: Section through Foundations beneath Entrance from North Portico, looking east . 122 
From a drawing by L. B. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 9, fig. 8. 
Pandroseum: North Face of two blocks from North Wall, now replaced (April 4,1918) . . . . . 124 
Pandroseum: Block from North Wall: isometric. ......2.2.2.2... Een es 124 
Pandroseum: Block with Water Channel: isometric ....,....2...5.+6+e48. nit 2 1Z0 
Pandroseum: Block, apparently from Pavement; isometric Teter ee Nia 126 
Block, probably ‘poe EANOCORGUIN PINOINO HIG sn 8 ia eae tele wee eo ee, 1 AOE ee Le 
Opening under Southwest Corner of the Erechtheum, looking east Pooptatnber 4, 1922) Mp temeatle de 
Pane 0. Courses 16-18 at. Southwest Corner. ... . . 2. cw ee Ne ee Roe ae A. ony | 
West Wall: Lower Portion of south end, from northwest (April 13,1914) .......~.2.2.. 131 


Porch of the Maidens: Junction of Architrave and Cornice with southwest Anta of Main Building 132 
Block from Parapet south of Cecropium abutting against Podium of Porch of the Maidens: isometric 133 


Smee or OCK Orawnh in PIgure 82. 55 ck a ek ke Pee cele ew a i 134 

inacrued.siock irom wall of Cecropium: isometric. . .. . 1 ek ke ee 135 

Block probably from wall of Cecropium or from Porch of the Maidens: isometric ...... . 135 

North Wall: Prehistoric Remains within the Temple, west side of west Pier. . . . 2... . 138 
From a photograph by L. B. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 7, fig. 5 

North Wall: Prehistoric Remains within the Temple, east side of west Pier (September 2, 1922) . 139 


North Wall: Foundations inside, showing marks of contact with prehistoric remains: elevation . 140 
North Wall: Prehistoric Remains west of Prothesis of Church (September 2, 1922)... ... . 141 
North Wall: Prehistoric Remains east of threshold of Prothesis (1926) ........2.2.. . 142 
From a photograph by Ant. Petritsis, Athens. 
East Wall: Block from Foundations rabbeted at south end: isometric ......... et 2) OLAS 
After a drawing of L. B. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pl. I, m. 
Plans of Courses 16-19 at junction of East and South Foundations. ......... pM ea 
From a drawing by L. B. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pl. I, p. 
Rock on line of East Cross-Wall, looking north (February 10,1914) ...........2.. 147 
Block, one-half usual thickness, from either North or South Wall at junction of East Cross-Wall: 
SGT: 2 oe BE SRN ee (oe aces alae rare MEER LU act Sobrt. SUmet acre Uk AN et * 149 
Block, from either North or kts Wall, on which rested a block only one-half the thickness of the 
wall: “on ay Le ee ee ee Per ea ML a ena US Ur fat i Bae at tera NE 149 
Two Blocks from either North or South Wall at junction of East Cross-Wall, showing Roman 
EMCO, IBOMIOLTIC | 85/5 ca al war. “ema He ee eg i, ee ee ee. 149 
Section, looking East, through Cistern beneath the Prostomiaion, showing present condition of west 
Ee a rn So ene RMOn LAME erties A dope en Stas 151 
North Wall: West end, inside, from South Doorway (March 28,1909) ............ 153 
South Wall: West end, inside, from North Door (March 26,1909) ...........4..., 155 
Peer memmce, from west (1922) ove") Sew GH ire wie gs ee tie a ree tal porsedtren 157 
From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 
forth Wall: inside, from southeast (March 28, 1909)... as ni oe ee ee eG 160 
fem nostate. trom: an-interior. wall .« J Ww .0@. teen en eeu ae I ee oe ee en 161 
emai: south Lace of Sil: 2 u.ch a0 ey Pkg dee loos nip ad bem ao nate alee planted neaeneaiane 162 
Left: Block from Pavement in Prostomiaion: isometric. Right: Section through West Wall and 
both interior and exterior Pavements, looking south... . 1... 1 2 es et ee ee 163 
orenobnd of Cistern beneath Prostomiaton (1922)5-4 . ~ 7 aco O28 Vicia el seme ae 164 
From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 
South End of Cistern beneath Prostomiaion (September 9,1922).............4.. 165 
Plan through Course 8 in Niche, from above. Sections on lines A-B and C-Dof Plan. .... . 172 
Left: Top of Course 6 in Niche, showing evidence for change of plan. Right: Horizontal Section 


through vertical joint at A, showing method of inserting small piece of marble to close the joint . 173 


XVIll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


109. 
110. 
tit: 


112. 
113. 
114. 
115. 
116. 


Bly 


118. 
A19. 


120. 
121. 
122. 
123. 
124. 
125. 
126. 


127. 
128. 


129. 
130. 


131. 
132. 
133. 


134. 
135. 


136. 


137. 
138. 
139. 
140. 


141. 
142. 


143. 


144, 


South Wall: Courses 1-3 at southwest corner, from east, before the restorationin 1908 . . . . 
Plan of Epicranitis at southwest corner of Main Building. Restored Plan of Greek Architrave 


(A) Plan of Ceiling over West Rooms: restored. (8) Reconstruction of Southwest Corner, showing 
transverse beam, metopon, niche, and coffered wooden ceiling: isometric . 


Passage under Nort Wall from yon West side from north, showing dressing of airing of site 
Sheath of an Egg, carved as a separate piece and inserted . 

Masons’ Marks 

Typical Portion of Rannaioar on Tart rae of North ren 


Section and Plan of Last Block laid in course, showing use of tongs for arousing bine inte ‘nie see 
also dowels in blocks already laid ree ern rr ee 


Architrave of East Portico, showing use of Shift Holes. Facinetne Detaue of or Bae upper Shift 
Holes . 
Ordinary Greek ee ree Loe Gee ian owen in Rs 


Block with cutting for Dowel and vertical Pour Channel: From crowning monliure of Pecan 
Porch of the Maidens . 


Dowel for securing Figures of ren ea Eat Parco : 

A T-Dowel See Rai. 
Plan and Section of T- Dowel in  Stylobate at ae corner of East Pare, now  Coneree 
Pin-dowel from Capital, Porch of the Maidens . 

Empoljon in Column of North Portico : 

Empolion from southwest Column of North Boeneoe 


Above: Plan and Section of upper part of Empolion from fed of oun Capea of Want Portions 
Below: Plan and Section of Augur Hole in this Empolion . wr 

Ordinary Greek Clamp: isometric 

North Portico: Top of Pier at southwest corner, annie a alte ane enitiees for Cate Bes 
a Lewis . : 

Roman Hook-clamp ee to secure Cn Coline of West Teena * lege of intemselan ae Wall 


North Portico: Capital of Pier at southwest corner, south and east faces, showing unfinished 
Anthemion 


North Portico: Capital fe east oe ae Sine porn tiee Lan contin 
North Portico: Capital of west Anta, north and east faces, from northeast 


Kast Portico: Capital of south Column: Plan from below and Elevation of west face, Rees in- 
serted pieces and uncarved volute . 


East Portico: Plan of top of Capital of north Goigank (British Mussina’? 


East Portico: North Face of Capital of north Column (British Museum) . 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 


East Portico: South and West Faces of Capital of north Column (British Museum) 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 


North Portico: Upper Drum of second Column from west, showing cutting for an inserted dart. . 

North Portico: West Block of Architrave on north side . . ay AeA DR A 

Inserted Moulding from Architrave on wall, inside Porch of the Maidens ........... 

Inserted Mouldings from North Portico, showing method of fastening and treatment of joints in 
egg-and-dart ornament 

Method of inserting half a Dart: Grane Moulding of Podines ea of ins Maidewe ; 

(a) Inserted Dart secured by slight sinking of its lower aoe ak Inserted Reel without Tenon. 
(c) Inserted Reel secured by a Tenon. . 

East Portico: Block beneath base of north aah Moe Block as exposed Decora A 1908. 
Below: Isometric Drawing. 


Cross and tangential-longitudinal Sections of eo of iret sempervivens, As EYE kode 
in bed of south Capital of East Portico . . . . 4.) ) 2...) 2 


145. 


146. 


147. 


148. 


149. 


150. 


P53 


152. 
153. 


154. 
155. 
156. 
157. 
158. 


159. 
160. 
161. 
162. 
163. 
164. 
165. 
166. 
167. 
168. 
169. 
170. 
171. 
172. 
173. 
174. 
175. 


176. 
Ly. 
178. 
179. 


180. 
181. 
182. 
183. 
184. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS X1x 


Porch of the Maidens: (a) Southwest Corner from Northwest. (8) Southeast Corner from Northeast 235 
From photographs of the German Archaeological Institute. 


memo nornnweet Caryatids-(A seront. (0s) Profile;. .© 0 @coy w . e Ge ever ce oh vs ene 28F 
From photographs of the German Archaeological Institute. 
Head of Caryatid at southwest corner ......... hk ee A, = ORE En rer Re nay 237 
From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute 
Peng ot Caryatid at southeast corner. . ....... +...  theg OA nh Fe rae 2 eal Se} 237 
From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute. 
Peewee arvatig west: of southeast'cormer 2. {000.5 2 ee 238 
From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute. 
Sremrave, Krieze, and Cornice: British Museum 2... 2.00. 6 ew ee ee ee 6289 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
Frieze: Fragment 4, Back. ........ eae kee Lae ges WTO Aha: germ seis ti nZA7 
From a drawing by L. Pallat, Ant. Denk. fe 6 
EMO CUO Gols AB TONG ANC LE IGG. 4. ui, fs wm ono e ae ee ew ww ewe la ee ke 251 
Frieze: Fragment 18, Right Side. . . . Boe ae ees Maha Biel ha et Tae ie care 
From a drawing by L. Pallat, Ant. Denk. fig. 8. 
clo URS VEE 41 EG) ne eh teh oa 253 
Presobrapment28. Back ... ......... ee re! ke ieee MAE ao ie Oe ee sea 45: 
PIT etrCn ole UPON. O84. AG! Wa es Se ork we a Ve ee SE Peak Weasce  oOE 
MEPIS NETL OK GAP ol ites ig Mua gh ss ccd bbe oe oe. see a os See eek 
Frieze: Fragment 48, Side. Se es nee a err A gre i len teh: 256 
From a drawing by L. Pallat, Ant. Denk. ws 13. 
Pmezesvragment 58, Side (aA) and Back (Bp)... 2... 6. fb te es a 
emer emernt G2, ide. and Pront.g.;.. 9°. eo. 3G 8 sk ee en eek wis ne ee a ec ieer IeOe 
Frieze; Fragment 92,recumbent........ 7... Se ee ee a RS ny ee ey ee ee 264 
weroeemuramment Ol Side. <n. a kas ok ew ee ne Pee nip, Oia Tiree aI) 267 
Seno MeL NS. ACK Lhe Se ue ee ee Be Ge oy BO ele ee a CNT Bes ird 
MMPE INCH O 7 DRCK kN geass ae See eee ee ahs Teed Gogetale sect 29267. 
Frieze: Fragment 112. (a) From left. (8) From front. © : Fron right. (D) Bron Batind cies e209 
UR TRE IIS AS a t EL. eects Ati te Sage! ack ge A Eo 2 ech a iS ER 0) ee Ne) Ws 270 
Cee CUSTNCt(: Tyrant oly Sit sens) Be 2 ee SS ee Se, SOA RS 2 L27t 
emer oe ragment.C oh a RN Eek, Oe ete IS all: 271 
RM EN RCUG LS ee Nhe ie a, oie ous Theat tS Cosma ake Gh Le ee teenies Wicd Aine wis ees & 
EE Get Mor oe Ph te, te Seca s hE ee Pe, oye else Oe Shenae a 273 
IR OTIVGTI TE sr Be Ret ts Poe SE ae hs atte ee eo Senge Be 273 
SPM EstOMNOTIG Crete oe a Sa Ee gt BRON eh fee aia ote wat we Sele we am tltas cae at ee Pa: 
Frieze (?): Fragment J, Front (a) an de Cy. ec te leet cie ae 8 A tt Sent Naat pte wae 273 
Frieze (?): Fragment K, Front (a) and Side (B) . . . . . Re Me aR eID Le tee a ae aie Boe ete 
Seer er rapmens, Ly. Prone (4) and Side4B)- ay) oe es mye oh nate 
From B. Schroeder, Alkamenes-Studien, pl. II, fig. 5 
Pree. 1l.0ct Fragments: “Ed. ’Apx., 1837, Nos: 33,36, 37,48 ek sk we eo 274 
Frieze: Fragments not certainly identified: "E@. ’Apx., 1837, 41,46, 47,48... ....... 275 
UE SEA SCTIDEON Los Won i ek as ee eke ee a eNO ed “pe my At awe ass OR ae ey Pe ge 279 
Diagram showing relative position of Inscriptions II-VI... .. 2... 1... ee eee. 282 
After drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor, A. J. A., XVII, 1913, p. 245, fig. 1. 
South Wall, showing position of blocks missing in 409B.c. .........-+-+-+-+-+26. 303 
SimemomiiArsenalat Pirseuss 1:.uie oct Ueno o) ee ese armed oo es piace rane ee 305 
Reeeiiniand Kinkranon: 0g kik. A) os eas ee ails ake lke pie ta tien gy Bee ns ot 306 
Plan of Epicranitisin Niche. ...... Fi ee rr ree Pe? er area eS Se ts 306 


Panes Epistyle at Southwest Comer... «468 fb acae el Ree we iy CR eee ae soe ll = 307 


XX 


185. 
186. 


187. 
188. 
189. 
190. 
191. 
192. 
193. 


194. 
195. 


204. 
205. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
Plan of Altar ‘of the Thyecholis’ . 2. SPUN GE re ree ne 2 ee 318 
Diagram showing relative position of Inscriptions VITI-XI ...........2..2.... 325 
After drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor, A. J. A., XVII, 1913, p. 249, fig. 2. 
Plan of the Main Building at the level of the Krieze- 7 7 «2. SS |) ee 348 
Section through East Entablature, showing the position of the marble Antithemata. ..... . 349 
Section of East Cella, looking west... ... . LW a ile hula gee ena 353 
Diagrams illustrating the sawing of timbers... ... 20) «4 . 1.2% 2. 2.2) 355 
Arrangement of Cornice and Tympanum Blocks . .... . ee, 358 
Ladder and Frames in East Ceiling. ......... eer 366 
A Compartment of the Ceiling of the East Cella, restored: ascmeune ee 367 
From a drawing by G. P. Stevens. 
Diagram showing relative position of Inscriptions XITI-XX .........2..2.,.02;, 372 
Ingeription XVIID oe co ee ae a a is 
. nseription ALA Se. Se a ee ee Doe ee ee 377 
* Inscription 20> 22. 3. ch) sone oe ea ep wk me Oe 377 
« Inseription XXT a ee oe a 377 
> Tnseriphion XOCT eee ec i oh cor eee eee ee ere eee ce ee se ee er es 
~ ADSEFIPtiON RCL pe: ee ee a eee eerie 378 
. Inscription XXTV 2 ee a ee 379 
. Inseription XXV . 6. ee we em ee ee i ee 379 
. Diagram showing the length of inner Epistyle painted .......4:.... . ose 411 
From a drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor, A. J. A., XIV, 1910, p. 291, fig. 1. 
Inseription XXVIo2 0. ee ee a ee a 417 
Inscriptions XXVIl and XXVITT . 2 2. 417 
. The Thrones of the Priests of Butes and of Hephaestus. (a) Isometric Drawieen (B) Front of 
Thrones (April 4, 1918). (c) Back and right end of Thrones (April4,1918) ......... 485 
. Interior of the Erechtheum from the east, showing the walls of the Cinareh (January, 1922) . . . 495 
From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 
. West end of the Erechtheum from the southeast, showing remains of inner west wall of the Church 
(March, 1913) 2.00. ee ee OE a 498 
. Bases from the inner west wall of the Church. Above: The uninscribed Base on the Acropolis 
(1925). Below: The inscribed Bases in the Epigraphical Museum ......2.2...... 500 
From a drawing by L. B. Holland. 
. Southeast Corner of Nave and Diaconicum, from north (January 26,1914) ......4.2... 501 
. Interior of the Church of Santo Stefano on the Via Latina, Rome ........2.2..... 506 
From a photograph by J. M. Paton. 
. Interior of the Church of San Pietro at Toscanella, Italy . ... . . 2. «0 eee 507 
By permission from a photograph by Alinari, Florence. 
. Carved Slab from the Ieonostasis (1922). 2) . a 509 
From a photograph by I. Andreou, Athens. 
. leconostasis in Church of St. Luke of Stiris, Phocis . ..: 2... . . 9. 5) 512 
From Archaeologia, LV, pl. XXXIV. 
. Diaconicum and South Aisle, from east (January 26,1914) .. . . . (0) 2 0 514 
. The Acropolis in 1687: from the Plan by Verneda .. =... : . . 4 | 3). ee 532 
From a photograph by Oreste Bertani, Venice. 
. The Erechtheum: drawn in 1729 by C—L. Fourmont.§ |... ... . . 5. 537 
From a photograph by Berthaud Fréres, Paris. 
. Rough Plan of the Acropolis in 1787: Fauvel”... . . . . 1... . as 5) 546 
From a photograph by Berthaud Fréres, Paris. 
. “Temple of Minerva Polias, Acropolis, 1800”: Gell . . ...... . . . 3 ee 548 


From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 


220. 
221. 
222. 
223. 
224. 
225. 
226. 
227. 
228. 
229. 
230. 
231. 
232. 
233. 


234. 
235. 
236. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


“Pandroseum and Temple of Minerva Polias, Acropolis”: Gell 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
“Western Fronts of the Temples of Erectheus, Minerva Polias and Pandrosus, Acropolis”: Gell 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
“Temple of Erechtheus, Acropolis”: Gell . . . 
From a photograph by ieee Macbeth, London. 
The Loft in the North Portico: Cockerell . . . 
By permission from J. H. S., XXIX, 1909, pL VIL. 
The North Portico from the northwest: James Skene, February 27, 1839 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
The Erechtheum from the southwest: James Skene, 1839 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
The Erechtheum from the northeast: James Skene, January 8, 1841 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
The Interior of the Erechtheum: James Skene, May 25, 1841 
From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London. 
The Erechtheum from the southwest: Christian Hansen, about 1844 
From Allgemeine Bauzeitung, XVI, 1851, pl. 429. 


Bronze Lamp found in the Erechtheum in 1862 .... . 
From a photograph of the National Museum, Athens. 

The Erechtheum from the northwest, about 1890. 
From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute, 

The Erechtheum from the southwest, about 1890 
From a photograph by Romaides, Athens. 


The Erechtheum from the northeast, before 1902 ..........2.2... 
From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute. 


to i ewe o's? rsa e Se) 


ee ee ee Oe ee ee. RAR Git oar eee ARC LE ae 


amevcrecninenim,. irom the northeast, after 1909... -c) ee ee ee ea 


From a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute. 
The Northeast Corner of the Pandroseum (May 30,1918). ............... 
Alternative Reconstruction of Supports of Transverse Beam: isometric ......... 


ETE eens A aS elie eC pO SPORES uur Ba ery Te loge as 
Facsimile by L. D. Caskey from a squeeze furnished by W. B- Dinsmoor. 


i a te) be Fel la ieee 18. LS ae ee a 


XXx1 
549 
550 
551 
556 
562 
563 
564 
565 
567 
572, 
574 
575 
576 
517 


580 
646 
648 


r 
, ¢ 
x 
A 
Si q 
t se «5 J 
~ mes 7 
i es f iF } 


TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 


The numbers in parentheses refer to the Bibliography in Appendix C. 


PuatsE and Fig. refer to the plates and figures in this book. 
pl. and fig. refer to plates and figures in works cited. 


ee 


Piet Curglog 620s... ec. cn 
Sn)... ee ek 


ee 
eet ee ee ce ees 
ee 


Baumeister, Denkmiler.............. 
ree EE 


Perr mRREY ne sk ec ee 
Berl. Winckelmannsprogramm ....... 
Sl oo ee 


Piuiemiat, Estampes............... 
Bibl. Nat., MSS., Fonds fr.......... 

ING GOGO ST. aes 3 
Botticher, Untersuchungen........... 


Ee re 
eer SENSO. oe 
Pereetes Nino. Add.. 26. ...5.5..55 
MERNIRG TUREMIPUUTE Ss ee ce ee 


PPC OLIOGUE. oe oe ees 
Cavaignac, T'résor d’Athénes......... 


American Journal of Archaeology. 
Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Beriin. 


Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der bayerischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften. 


Amelung, Die Sculpturen des vaticanischen Museums. 
Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. 


Antike Denkméler herausgegeben vom deutschen archaeologischen 
Institut. 


Archaeologischer Anzeiger, in Jb. Arch. I. 
Archaeologische Zeitung. 


Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts; Athenische 
Abteilung. 


Bulletino deila Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma. 
Bulletin de correspondence hellénique. 

Annual of the British School at Athens. 

Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France. 
Baumeister, Denkméiler des klassischen Altertums. 


Berichte tiber die Verhandlungen der stchsischen Gessellschaft der Wis- 
senschaften zu Leipzig. 


Berliner philologische Wochenschrift. 

Winckelmannsprogramm der archaeologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin. 

Beulé, L’ Acropole d’Athénes (153). 

Bibliothéque de l’Ecole nationale des Beaux-Arts. 

Bibliothéque nationale, Paris; Département des Estampes. 

Id., Département des Manuscrits, Fonds francais. 

Id., Département des Manuscrits, Nouvelles acquisitions francaises. 

Boétticher, Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis von Athen im Frihjahre, 
1862 (175). 

Jahrbiicher des Vereins der Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande. 

The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 

British Museum, Additional Manuscripts. 


Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman An- 
tiquities. 


Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. A. Boeckh. 

Comptes-Rendus de V Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 

S. Casson, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, II. 

Cavaignac, Etudes sur Vhistoire financiére d’Athénes au V° siécle. Le 
trésor d’ Athénes de 480 a 404. 


XXIV 


Cavaignac, T'résor d’Eleusis......... 


Cavvadias and Kawerau............ 


Choisy, Biudes Sos case eee 
Clarke, "Assos, 1882-1883... -3..-4.-.- 


Clarkay] yavels. teas an ean eee 


Cl. Phit.. 


AcArion. A py: ick he eee as ee ee 


Dickins,. Catalogne..\...cce mn encaes 
Dich GY ORGOLe Chretien ee aes 
Dittenberger, Sylloge. . 0. ......4..5. 


Dodwell - Poste s ct venaeenee ee one 
Donaldson, Ancient Doorways........ 


DiOdge -Acopolsnme] pacman puree ee 


D’Espouy, Fragm. arch. ant. ........ 
Dy Hepouy, 2 oat. 2 ee 


"Eo. ’Apx 


Fravers) ausarios cst. 0 eee 
Punk -Corish. aA post ye keds wae oe. meas 
Furtwangler, Masterpieces........... 
Furtwangler, Meisterwerke........... 


0b: Qele ANE tp man. + vee a Aa 


Hore Std, GUS RG ee cee ok eg 
Heberdey, Porosskulptur.. ........ =: 


16221 


Inwood. . 


1 3. lubes M0 


Inwood; 6d nig meee he 0 Se eee 
Inwood "Yasmin ae ee eee 


JO APC. 1 1... cen ens ee 


Jb. kl. Alt 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Cavaignac, Etudes sur Vhistoire financiére d’Athénes au V° siécle. Le 
trésor sacré d’Eleusis gusqu’en 404. 

‘H ’Avackxady Tis ’Akporo\ews ad Tod 1885 pexpe Tod 1890 (Die 
Ausgrabung der Akropolis vom Jahre 1885 bis zum Jahre 1890). 

Choisy, Etudes épigraphiques sur V'architecture grecque, III (199). 


J. T. Clarke, Report on the Investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883 (Papers 
of the Archaeological Institute of America, Classical Series, IT). 


KE. D. Clarke, Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, 
Part II, Section II (42). 


Classical Philology. 


AeXtiov ’Apxaodoyixov Exdidduevov bd THs Tennis "Edopelas Tov 
"Appx avoTHnTwY. 

G. Dickins, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, I. 

¥. Cabrol, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie. 


G. Dittenberger, Sylioge Inscriptionum Graecarum. (The edition is 
indicated by a suspended numeral.) 


Dodwell, A Classical and Topographical Tour in Greece (57). 

Donaldson, A Collection of the most approved Examples of Doorways 
from Ancient Buildings (89). 

D’Ooge, The Acropolis of Athens (251). 


H. d’Espouy, Fragments d’architecture antique (222). 
H. d’Espouy, Monuments antiques (263). 
"Ednuepis “Apxarodoyrkn. 


Pausanias’s Description of Greece, translated by J. G. Frazer (223). 
F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. 

Furtwangler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture (220). 

Furtwingler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik (217). 


Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen. 


Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 


Heberdey, Altattische Porosskulptur. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der 
archaischen griechischen Kunst. 


Inscriptiones Graecae. 

Inscriptiones Graecae, Vols. I et II, editio minor. 
H. W. Inwood, The Erechtheion at Athens (80). 
The edition of 1827, with the introductory text. 


The edition of 1831, containing only the plates and descriptive text. 
The numbers and descriptions of the plates are the same in both 
editions. 


Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Jahn et Michaelis, Arz Athenarum a Pausania descripta (228). 
Id., Appendix Epigraphica. 

Id., Tabulae arcem Athenarum illustrantes. 

Jahrbuch des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts. 


Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche 
Literatur und fiir Padagogik. 


Judeich, Topographie............... 


Sula, reChIRCION.. 2... eae den 


Kiihner-Blass 
Kunstblatt 


Laborde, Athénes 
Lambert, Mémoire 


bu GON) 


Le Roy, Ruines 
Lethaby, Greek Buildings 


Locatelli 


Mendel, Mus. imp. ott., Sculptures... . 


Michel, Recueil 


VES ES a 


Museum 


CE iets aks keine oe eee 


SIDR TEANECHES), Fi. ces a ack ese 


Omont, Florilegium ... Melchoir de 


Me ies kk be sme 


PROVE ISEOWA oe eee eae ad 
EPA ATC. cy. ae ee a wie 8 


Petersen, Burgtempel............... 


Ipaxrixa 


Prokesch yon Osten................ 


Prokesch von Osten, Briefwechsel..... 


PREM Set 298 8 ny sans wey eA 


SRL oss eine! 6g) ss 6 Ge 6 a, © 60 ea ee 1& 4 0 


Middleton, Athenian Buildings....... 
MMMM Ry Fibs oe co ee es 8 es 


ABBREVIATIONS XXV 


Judeich, Topographie von Athen in Miiller, Handbuch der Altertums- 
wissenschaft, III, 2, ii (245). 


Julius, Ueber das Erechtheion (189). 


Kiihner, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Dritte 
Auflage, I* Teil, von Blass. 


Kunstblatt, Beiblatt zu Morgenblatt fiir gebildete Stiénde. 


L. de Laborde, Athénes auc XV*, XVI° et XVII° siécles. 

Lambert, Mémoire sur ’Erechthéion; Manuscript in Bibl. Ke. B.-A. 
(187). 

Legrand, Galerie antique, I, Monwmens de la Gréce (35). 

J.-D. Le Roy, Les ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Gréce (3). 


Lethaby, Greek Buildings represented by Fragments in the British 
Museum (254). 


A. Locatelli, Racconto historico della Veneta Guerra in Levante (App. 
ACV AL), 


Mélanges d’archéologie et d’ histoire. 
Mémoires de ’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 
Mémovres de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France. 


Mendel, Musées impériaux ottomans; Catalogue des sculptures, 
grecques, romaines et byzantines. 


Michel, Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. 
Middleton, Plans and Drawings of Athenian Buildings (226). 


Monumenti Inediti, pubblicati dall’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Arche- 
ologica. 


Monuments et Mémoires, publiés par ’ Académie des Inscriptions et 
Belles-Lettres. Fondation Prot. 


Museum, Blatter fiir bildende Kunst. 


Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich veranstalteten 
Ausgrabung. 

H. Omont, Athénes au XVII° siécle. 
l Acropole. 


Vues et plans d’Athénes et de 


Florilegium ou Recueil de travaux d érudition dédiées & M. le Marquis 
Melchoir de Vogiié, . . . 18 Octobre, 1909. 


Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden 
Kiinste bei den Griechen. 


Real- Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschafe. 


Penrose, An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture. 
Second edition (209). 


KE. Petersen, Die Burgtempel der Athenaia (249). 
Ilpaxrixa tis ev ’APjvars "Apxavodoyixns ‘Erarpias. 


Prokesch von Osten, Denkwiirdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem 
Orient (107). 


Briefwechsel zwischen Julius Schneller und seinem Pflegsohne Prokesch 
(93). 


A. F. von Quast, Das Erechtheion zu Athen (116). 


Weel? BAR een eles Oe Oe 5 ae 
Rangab@sAnt, Hellen 1cce ae 
heport Gre Cannio wer ce pees ont aee 
BRM Ue coe on ete Aces eee 
Rivoira; Orig. Arch. Lomv... =. vaames 


Roberts-Gardner, Greek Epigraphy ... 
Rebar MRE ee ane ats oe ea ee ee 
Roms QUE ele eae, Fae 


Roscher’s Derubon. 2) ask ae 
Hose; Frisert gr 2h cate ee 
Hose Arch Ags. coche toner aa 


91620. Berl AAA. wee ere ane ty 


Stuart andshevetess 205 ee ee 
Stuart and Revetts «access ee 


Tétaz, Mémoire explicatif.......... 
Thiersch, 2 prlcrige 25 ater oe 
Thiersch, Erechtheum, I, I1......... 


Thiersch, Sendschreiben an Boeckh.... 


Unger, Zevtrrechnung? 2 nae eee 


Venturivstirs-Agi. Tid in oe 


Walpole; Memoirsssy wren neers or 
Wheleractt crea eee 
Wiegand, Poros-Architektur......... 
Wilking, .Protus<Areiiien eee hes 
Wolfe; Notebookaee ee ee 


Z. Alterthumswissenschaft........... 
LZ, -DOUWESEN Ore ae 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Revue archéologique. 

Revue des études grecques. 

Royal Institute of British Architects. 

Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques (121). 

Upaxtixa ris eri Tod "EpexOeiov émitporns x. T. d. (150). 
Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie. 


Rivoira, Le Origine della Architettura lombarda e delle sue principalt 
derivazioni nei paesi doltr’ Alpe. First edition. 


I. 8S. Roberts and E. A. Gardner, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, 
Part II. 


Mitterlungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts; Rdémische 
Abteilung. 


Rémische Quartalschrift fiir christliche Altertumskunde und fiir Kirchen- 
geschichte. 


Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie. 
Rose, Inscriptiones graecae vetustissimae (78). 
Ross, Archdologische Aufsdtze (159). 


Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 
Berlin. 


Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classe 
der bayerischen Akademie zu Miinchen. 

J. Spon, Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Gréce et du Levant, etc. (App. 
A, III). 

J. Stuart and N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens (16). 


Stuart and Revett, The Antiquities of Athens, edited by W. Kinnard 
(79). 


M. Tétaz, Mémorre explicatif et justificatif de la restauration de V Erech- 
théion d’Athénes. Manuscript in Bibl. Ec. B.-A. (132). 


Thiersch, ‘Epikrisis der neuesten Untersuchungen des Erechtheums.’ 
Abh. Miinch. Akad., VIII, 2 (166). 


Thiersch, ‘Ueber das Erechtheum auf der Akropolis zu Athen.’ 
Abh. Miinch. Akad., V, 2; VI, 1 (135, 138). 


Thiersch, ‘Ueber die neuesten Untersuchungen des Erechtheums . . . 
Sendschreiben an... A. Boeckh.’ Gelehrte Anzeigen Minch. Akad. 
(151). 


Unger, Zeitrechnung der Griechen wnd Rémer, in Miller, Handbuch 
der Altertumswissenschaft, I. Zweite Auflage. 


A. Venturi, Storza dell’ Arte italiana. 


R. Walpole, Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic Turkey. 

G. Wheler, A Voyage into Greece (App. A, IV). 

Wiegand, Die archaische Poros-Architektur der Akropolis zu Athen. 
Wilkins, Prolusiones Architectonicae. 


J. L. Wolfe, Note-book in the Library of the Royal Institute of British 
Architects (App. A, XVII). 


Zeitschrift fiir Alterthumswissenschaft. 
Zeitschrift fiir Bawwesen. 
Zeitschrift fiir bildende Kunst. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


a 


CHAPTER I 


DESCRIPTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


Mipway on the north side of the Acropolis of Athens and close to its surrounding wall 
stands the Erechtheum, the joint sanctuary of Athena Polias and Poseidon-Erechtheus. 
No other Greek temple displays more striking peculiarities or offers greater difficulties to a 
complete and satisfactory comprehension. The main building is a rectangle, 24.078 m. long 
from east to west, and 13.004 m. wide from north to south, measured at the bottom of the 
lowest step (PLATE ITI). The east front with its wall and portico of six Ionic columns is that 
of a hexastyle, prostyle temple, but a glance at the ground plan (Puatss I, IL) shows that 
at the west there is a wide departure from accepted norms. Here the fagade is formed by a 
plain wall surmounted by four half-columns between antae, the intervals being closed by a 
wall broken by windows in the three central intercolumniations (PLATE IV).!_ The unusual 
character of this western end is further accentuated by the presence of a portico on either 
side — ad humeros, according to the usual interpretation of the phrase of Vitruvius.2 From 
the south wall there projects the little Porch of the Maidens, so called from the six female 
statues (xdpar) which support its roof. These Caryatids — to use their modern name — 
stand on a marble podium, four in line facing south, and one behind each corner figure. An 
opening in the podium close to the northeast corner gives access to the interior of the porch, 
whence steps descend through a doorway leading into the west room of the temple. On the 
other side of the main building rises the great North Portico. Its columns are arranged in 
the same manner as the statues of the Maidens, four on the north front, and the other two 
on the east and west respectively. In the southeast corner is a small underground chamber, 
or crypt, visible through an opening in the pavement and accessible through a small door- 
way in the foundations of the north wall. In the centre of the south side of the portico was 
the principal entrance to the western part of the temple, as is clearly shown both by the 
size of the doorway and by the exceedingly rich decoration in which it is framed (PLATE 
XXV). Unlike the Porch of the Maidens, which on the west aligns with the West Fagade of 
the main building, the North Portico projects considerably beyond this line (PLate I1), 
and from this extension a second, much smaller, and wholly unornamented doorway leads 
into what was in ancient times an enclosed precinct immediately west of the Erechtheum 
(Puates I, II). These two porticoes on the north and the south, in spite of their striking 
effect both in plan and elevation, are yet clearly marked as accretions to a structure com- 


1 In the original Greek fagade there was a low wall between the columns, and above this wooden grilles except in 
the southern intercolumniation which was left open (PLaTE XIII); see pp. 60 ff. 
2 Vitruvius, IV, 8, 4. See below, Ch. V, p. 477. 


3 


+ THE ERECHTHEUM 


plete in itself, since both end below the cornice of the main building, so that its roof is not 
affected by their presence but is that of a normal temple. In addition to these exceptional 
features in its plan, the Erechtheum is unique in that the ground on the east and south is 
much higher than on the west and north, the difference between the two levels, measured 
at the bottom of the lowest step of the Kast and North Porticoes respectively, being 3.24 m.1 
The conditions outside the building were reflected in the interior, which was divided into 
two unequal parts by a transverse wall 7.318 m. from the east front (PLATE II). Naturally 
the floor of the East Cella was given a height appropriate to that of the East Portico, while 
the floors in the three western rooms (PLATE I) corresponded to the lower level of the North 
Portico, from which they were usually entered (PLATE XV). 

The explanation of these and other peculiarities in construction must be sought in the 
functions which the new temple was designed to fulfill, and in the previous history of the 
site on which it stood; but an essential preliminary to any discussion of these topics is a 
critical examination of the existing remains, in the endeavor to recover from their evidence 
the original appearance of the building. It is the purpose of this chapter and the accom- 
panying plates (I-X XX) to set forth the results of such an examination. The text, how- 
ever, is not complete in itself, since it does not attempt to describe fully all the facts about 
the building which the plates exhibit, still less to repeat all the dimensions there figured, 
and its perusal can in no way serve as a substitute for the study of the plates. Rather is it 
to be regarded as a detailed commentary in which attention is called to such points as seem 
important or unusual in the construction of the building, and the significant facts are col- 
lected and examined with a view to presenting all the data upon which the restorations in 
the plates are based and to justifying the interpretations there adopted. In all this the 
building itself has been regarded as the chief and far the best source and the testimony of 
the stones themselves as the most reliable, though for what has now disappeared recourse 
has naturally been had to the inscriptions relating to its construction and to the descrip- 
tions and drawings of those who saw the building before it had received its worst injuries. 

Even at the risk of being tedious it has seemed advisable to present the evidence and the 
arguments for the reconstructions at considerable length, if only as illustrating the method 
employed. Experience has proved that such exhibitions of method — instances will readily 
occur to those acquainted with the publications on Greek architecture — are valuable to 
the student, especially the student in the field, by enabling him to begin his researches 
equipped with the knowledge of the processes employed by his predecessors as well as of 
the results attained. Moreover, quite apart from these considerations of method, a detailed 
description should render it easier for the reader to distinguish between the observed facts 
and the inferences drawn from them, and thus to determine more surely the line between 
the certain and the hypothetical, however well supported. 


1 The pavement of the enclosed precinct west of the Erechtheum was 0.793 m. above the ground around the North 
Portico; see Ch. V, p. 425. 


DESCRIPTION 5 


I. FOUNDATIONS AND CREPIS 


The foundations of the Erechtheum are generally of poros, laid in regular courses of rounpa- 
ashlar masonry, resting directly on the hard limestone of the Acropolis, which here de- T0N*% 
scends somewhat rapidly from southeast to northwest.!_ Examination of the exposed por- 
tions of the bed shows that the rock was carefully dressed to receive the foundations, al- 
though since this dressing naturally follows to a certain extent the inclination of the rock, 
the horizontal beds have not a uniform level, but are cut into steps here and there (PLATES 
IX, X). Ina few cases, to avoid deep cutting into the rock, slight hollows have been filled 
with small blocks of stone or, where the block covering the hollow was firmly supported at 
both ends, with earth and chips. Since only the necessary bed was cut horizontally, it 
sometimes happens that the bottom of the block resting on the bed is hidden by the uncut 
portion of the rock in front, thus producing the impression at first glance that the block has 
been cut to fit an inclined bed. 

Beneath the north wall (PLatr XI; Fig. 88) the foundation proper * (course 23) east of 
the west cross-wall ‘ consists of a single course of poros, except at the sides of the opening 
leading into the crypt beneath the North Portico, where marble is employed. East of the 
east cross-wall this course, so far as can be seen, is composed exclusively of headers; west of 
that wall it consists of stretchers on the inside backing headers on the outside (PLATE VII).° 
The roughly chiselled south face of this course projects somewhat beyond the face of the 
wall above (Fig. 1), but while west of the east cross-wall this projection is fairly uniform, 
east of that wall it steadily diminishes from west to east.6 The next course (22), consisting 
wholly of poros headers, forms the backing of the lowest marble step on the outside (Fig. 1). 
The blocks of this course are not perfectly uniform and, where they extend beyond the face 
of the wall inside the building, have been left somewhat irregular both in height and pro- 
jection (PLatr XI).’ Underneath the wall and the second marble step, however, they 


1 At the entrance to the crypt under the North Portico the rock is 1.20 m. lower than at the southeast corner of 
the main building. The inclination within the Erechtheum varies between 103 and 14 per cent. 

2 A good example of this deceptive appearance may be seen in the foundation beneath the North Door (PLatr XI; 
Figs. 98, 105), where the lowest stone on the right really rests on a horizontal bed which is concealed by the uncut rock 
on the south. So far as can be seen, only once, at the extreme southern end of the west wall, has a block been cut for 
a short distance to fit an inclined bed (PLATE X). 

3 Courses 21 and 22, although hidden on the inside of the building, were visible outside (Fig. 1) and strictly 
speaking belong rather to the superstructure than to the foundation proper. 

4 West of the cross-wall, beneath the North Door, the foundation, owing to the greater depth of the rock, is com- 
posed of two courses of stretchers somewhat irregularly fitted at the east end (PLATE XI), and above them a course 
of headers, on which rests a course of marble ranging with the middle step of the North Portico. 

5 The two western headers are of full height; the four to the east have been cut down to receive blocks of the 
marble pavement. Owing to the inclination of the rock there are two additional courses of poros below the headers on 
the outside of the building east of the North Portico, and one within the Portico, east of the doorway to the crypt 
(PuaTE VII). 

6 The projection of the several blocks, reading from west to east, is as follows: 0.24 m., 0.22 m., 0.25 m. (the three 
stretchers, the westernmost in great part hidden by the late concrete pier); 0.85 m., 0.40 m., 0.18 m., 0.11 m., 0.065 m. 
(the five visible headers); see Fig. 88, course 23, blocks 2-4, 5-9. 

7 The height of this course varies from 0.44 m. to 0.51 m., but is generally about 0.49 m. Its roughly chiselled 
face projects from 0.19 m. to 0.382 m. south of the wall, the average projection being 0.27 m. 


6 THE ERECHTHEUM 


have been cut down to a height of one Attic foot (Fig. 1) in order to align with the top of 
the lowest step, and furnish a true bed for the second step and its poros backer (course 
21). Upon the projecting part of this course 
(22), and therefore behind the upper part of the 
backer of the middle step (21) and the lower part 
of the top step (20), is a thin course of poros 
blocks, set on edge and neither clamped nor bonded 
into the wall (Pharr XI; Figs. 1, 2, 101).1_ The 
upper part of the north face of these blocks has in 
numerous instances been trimmed away to facili- 
tate the setting of course 20, the marble upper step. 
These thin blocks were secured with lead which was 
run between the vertical joints and into the irreg- 
ular bottom and top joints, and the westernmost 
existing block has at its northwestern lower corner 
a mass of lead which serves after a fashion as a 
dowel.? This lead dowel has been chiselled off on 
the north side in a way impossible except when that 
side was free, or in other words before the backer of 
the middle step was placed (Fig. 3). From these 
facts it follows that these thin blocks are no later 
addition but were in their present position when 
the middle step and its backer were laid. It is 
probable that they were even set before the blocks 


FiaurE 1. SECTION THROUGH NORTH WALL, 
LOOKING EAST. AT A, BLOCKS OF WALL 


EXTENDING INTO PODIUM below were cut down to serve as backers to the 


bottom and as bed to the middle step.‘ 
Under the East Portico a single massive foundation sustained the columns, pavement, 
and east wall. When the Erechtheum was transformed into a church,® the five upper 


1 The course seems to have extended originally from the lintel of the opening into the crypt to the foundations of 
the East Portico. The block, or blocks, at the west end probably disappeared when the late pier was constructed at 
this point (p. 138), and a block on the line of the east cross-wall (Fig. 93) when another concrete pier was built there. 
Some of the peculiarities of this course were noted by Penrose (Ath. Arch., p. 11, fig. 17): “The top course (i. e., east 
of the doorway into the crypt beneath the North Portico) has been partly broken away, and exhibits a very peculiar 
construction forming a thin lining of poros stone which covers the marble which forms the outside wall and is fixed to 
it by being run with lead. This appears to have been intended for the support of a pavement flush with that of the 
western apartment.”” See also Report Gr. Comm., § 44; pl. 4, 7. 

2 The lead dowel measures 0.145 m. X 0.065 m. X 0.065 m.; of the height, 0.026 m. is above and 0.039 m, 
below the bottom joint of the stone. 

3’ This photograph was taken during the excavations of 1914, when it was found necessary to lift the thin block, 
in order to clear it of earth and the caper roots which were forcing it out of place. The photograph shows the north 
side of the block with the chiselled lead and the upper part of the face cut back when the top step was laid. 

4 The explanation of this peculiar course, as well as of other unusual features in the foundations, depends upon 
conditions in the interior when the Erechtheum was built and is therefore discussed in the section devoted to the in- 
terior of the building, pp. 142 f. ’ For a description of this church, see Ch. V, pp. 492 ff. 


Fiaune 2. FOUNDATIONS OF NORTH WALL, INSIDE, FROM WEST (SEPTEMBER 2, 1922) 


(7) 


8 THE ERECHTHEUM 


courses of this foundation were in great part removed to make room for the apse (PLATES 
II, IX, XXXT; Fig. 30), and many of the blocks were used to build the low walls between 
the nave and the aisles. Their variations in height, which agree with the variations in the 
height of those parts of the courses still in situ, make it possible to determine the courses in 
which they were originally placed. Not all the stones removed were thus used, for the ag- 
gregate volume of the material in the walls of the church is much less than the amount taken 
from the temple. The east foundations are generally laid in alternate courses of stretchers 
and headers. At the north end, so far as can be seen, they continue the coursing of the 
north wall, but in the lower courses this alignment extends for only about 1.15 m., at which 
point there is regularly a slight break in the horizontal jointing.! The top of course 18, which 


FigurE 3. NORTH FACE OF WESTERNMOST INSERTED POROS BLOCK, 
SHOWING LEAD AT LOWER RIGHT CORNER 


ranges with the top of the orthostates in the north wall, was apparently the first to continue 
in an unbroken line across the east end, and the top of course 17 the first to retain the same 
level in north, east, and south walls (PLares IX, XI, XII). Owing to the greater elevation 
of the rock at the southeast corner, the two lowest courses (23, 22) do not extend the full 
width of the building (PLATE IX). Course 23 — of stretchers resting in a series of steps 
cut in the sloping rock — ends about 5.35 m. from the north wall; course 22 reaches 0.67 m. 
farther, and is composed of headers, except at the south end where a stretcher 0.975 m. 
long ? crosses a slight gap (0.27 m.) between the end of the course below and a shelf cut in 
the adjacent rock. The next two courses (21, 20) have a small block inserted at the south 
end of each, since the normal succession of stretchers or headers does not fill the space to 
the south wall (Fig. 4). This indicates that the corresponding courses of the south wall were 
already in position when these courses were laid, and also that the construction of these two 
courses of the east wall proceeded from north to south. The blocks of the lowest course - 
vary considerably in height, since they rest on the irregular bed in the sloping rock, but the 


1 In Puate IX the irregular jointing is partially concealed by mediaeval masonry. 
2 This block rests for 0.305 m. of its length on the course below and for 0.40 m. on the rock to the south. 


DESCRIPTION 9 


other three courses are uniform and approximately equal.! The top of course 20 is dressed 
to a smooth bed only beneath the blocks of course 19, which is set back from 0.15-0.24 m. 
as measured in the apse, leaving a low uneven ledge on course 20. The prepared bed and the 
rough border can be plainly seen in the centre of the foundations, where the blocks of 
course 19 have been removed. The height of course 19, 0.455 m., 1s practically that of the 
courses below. The next course (18) overhangs the course below by about 0.30 m.2 It 


Figure 4. FOUNDATIONS AT SOUTHEAST CORNER, FROM INSIDE 


is only about 0.42 m. in height, being the lowest course in the foundation, probably because 
it was cut down to align with the top of the orthostates in the north wall.’ At its south end 
the usual headers are replaced by a very long stretcher (Fig. 4), which extends into the 
south wall an unknown distance, and was obviously laid before the corresponding and 
slightly lower course of that wall. The next two courses (17, 16) align with the correspond- 
ing courses of the side walls, and have their west faces exactly above that of course 18. 

1 The height of course 22 is about 0.47 m.; of course 21 about 0.48 m.; of course 20 about 0.46 m. The variations 
amount to only a few millimetres. 

2 At the north end the hollow thus caused between courses 18 and 20 is still in great part filled by mediaeval 


rubble and mortar (PLATE IX). 
8 For a discussion of these and other peculiarities in the arrangement of courses 18 and 19, see below, pp. 144 ff. 


10 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Curiously enough, the lower of these courses is composed of headers at the north end and of 
stretchers at the south. All these courses of the foundation extend approximately 0.65 m. 
beyond the inner face of the east wall. Course 15, composed of poros headers, does not now 
project west of the wall (Fig. 30), but cuttings for dowels in the top of course 16 (PLats IT) 
indicate that it once had much the same extension as the courses below, and it has been so 
restored in PLatE XV. Since it serves as backing to the two lower steps of the East Portico, 
it hardly forms part of the foundation proper. 

The foundations of the south wall (PLatr XII; Figs. 5, 100) east of the east cross-wall 
consist of six courses of poros upon which rest two courses of marble, backing the three 
marble steps and the moulded base of the exterior (p. 48). The lowest course of poros (21) 
rests on a bed cut in the rock ! except for about 2.35 m. east of the cross-wall, where, so far 
as can be seen, it is carried over hollows in the rock by a short series of blocks, apparently 
taken from older constructions (PLaTge XII; Fig. 5).2 From east to west this series is com- 
posed of two small dark brown stones * and two larger blocks of soft yellowish poros now a 
strong red on parts of their surface from exposure to fire. The first of the latter is deeply 
worn on the under surface and is almost certainly an old step reversed. It lies partly on 
the rock and partly on a filling of earth and chips. The other block (Fig. 100, A), probably 
also an old step, rests partly in a bed cut for it in the rock and near its northwest corner has 
been further secured by running lead between it and the uneven rock. West of these old 
blocks and extending a short distance under the line of the east cross-wall is now a small 
gap in the foundations (PLatss II, XII; Figs. 5, 100, B). This gap is 0.57 m. wide from the 
burned stone on the east to the poros block on the west, 0.23 m. high, and from 0.17 m. to 
0.21 m. deep. Its southern boundary is formed by a vertical scarp, the line of which is not 
parallel with the wall but diverges about 10° toward the southeast. The visible length of 
the scarp is 0.54 m. and its height 0.20m. On the east it apparently extends for a short 
distance (about 0.04 m.) behind the western burned block, which has been trimmed away 
at the southwest corner to avoid it. Its north face and the bed of the rock in front of it ® 
have been carefully dressed with a pointed chisel, the marks of which are still surprisingly 
fresh and distinct, although it seems certain that this dressing was done before the blocks 
on either side were laid; in fact the difference in orientation suggests that it is earlier than 


1 The top of this course is horizontal, but the height varies, being about 0.37 m. at the cross-wall and about 
0.475 m. where it rests on the rock farther east. 

2 It is probable that these blocks simply fill out on the north a bed cut for course 21 in the higher rock to the 
south. 

3 These stones are about 0.25 m. long. The height of the eastern one is from 0.05 m. to 0.09 m., that of the western 
about 0.185 m. They rest on undressed rock and earth. 

4 The first block is 0.675 m. long and about 0.21 m. high; the second is 0.52 m. long, 0.22 m. high, and about 
0.50 m. wide from north to south. This part of the foundations and the rock on the north are shown in plan and 
section by Heberdey, Porosskulptur, pp. 175, 176; figs. 184, 185. The two burned stones are his C; and C2; the brown 
stone north of the foundations (see below) is Ci. 

5 The dressing in the rock is about 0.44 m. wide at the foot of the scarp and rises from 0.02 m. to about 0.04 m. 
above the rock on the east and west. The scarp continues for 0.10 m., or perhaps more, to the southeast beyond the 
dressed surface of the rock. 


‘TIVH NUGLSVE “TIVM HLOOS JO SNOILVGNNOd “¢ THAD 


NOILVAG1TG :AdISNI 


T fe} 


ere ear 


Se RARER ig Soe e pew 
ceca A es ac 


-|—~ 
= 
J = 


[sii 


12 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the planning of the present Erechtheum. So far as can be seen, neither the scarp nor the 
dressed bed ever extended farther west. A little to the north, in the aisle of the church, lies 
a block of soft dark brown poros (Piats II; Figs. 100,C, 215),' which by its dimensions 
might have once filled the gap in the foundations, though in that case it would have pro- 
jected farther north into the interior than the adjacent blocks. When discovered it rested 
in part on a shallow bed of earth in which were found bits of Byzantine pottery, so that the 
block was clearly not in its original position. Even if it were formerly in the foundation, 
there is nothing to show that it is the block for which the cutting in the rock was first made, 
or that it differs in this respect from the re-used blocks farther east, which were certainly 
placed in their present position by the builders of the Erechtheum. 

From the east cross-wall to the east jamb of the doorway in the Porch of the Maidens the 
foundations of the south wall are only two courses high, since the low level of the floor in 
this part of the building left exposed the greater part of the inner face of the wall (PLATE 
XII; Fig. 100). The lowest course (21) is composed of poros headers, apparently of 
standard size (4 At. ft. long, 2 At. ft. wide, 14 At. ft. high), set in a bed cut in the rock and 
laid from east to west, as appears from the insertion of a poros wedge at the latter end to 
meet an adjoining foundation, now missing. The eastern block (Figs. 5, 100,D, 215) lies 
partly under the cross-wall, and in setting it the lower part of the exposed north face was 
roughly cut away. The upper part of this face has also been trimmed back, so that it pro- 
jects only from 0.11 m. to 0.08 m. beyond the lowest marble course (Puatss II, XII; Figs. 
100, 215). The rest of the course (Figs. 100,E, 215) extends from 0.34 m. to 0.44 m. into 
the interior of the temple, except west of the west cross-wall, where its original projection 
has been cut away in the construction of the cistern. The next course (20), of marble 
stretchers four Attic feet long, was also laid from east to west, since its eastern block is set 
into a cutting in the poros block on the east (PLATE XII; Figs. 5, 100, F), while its western 
block is fastened at the west by two dowels? to the course below (PLATE IX; Fig. 6). The 
three eastern blocks rest on the dressed surface of the poros blocks, but the rest of the 
course is countersunk to a depth of about 0.025 m.* The blocks in this course vary in 
height from 0.334 m. at the extreme east to 0.359 m. just east of the west cross-wall. 

A continuous foundation thus extends under the north, east, and south walls of the 
main building as far as the east jamb of the door into the Porch of the Maidens. West of 
this jamb the original foundation has in great part disappeared without leaving any trace 
on the rock or any indication that it keyed into the foundation east of the door. Traces on 
the west face of the wall beneath the east jamb and on the under side of the threshold of 


1 The position of the stone when discovered is shown in Pate II, and by Heberdey, op. cit. It has since been 
turned so that its long axis now runs from northwest to southeast instead of from northeast to southwest (Fig. 100, c). 

2 A third dowel cutting, farther south (Fig. 6), was never used, apparently because it was too close to the joint 
in the course below. 

3 There is a similar countersinking in course 20 of the north wall for the fourth block from the North Door in 
course 19, and also in the cornice of the East Portico for the central block of the pediment; see below, p. 187. 


DESCRIPTION 13 


the door show, however, that below the threshold the wall continued for at least one course, 
which, together with its foundation, was later replaced by a rude mediaeval or Turkish 
wall composed of fragments of stone and brick set in mortar.1. This wall once extended to 
the southwest corner, but was in great part removed during the restoration of 1909, when 
a poros pier was built beneath the west jamb of the door (PLares VII, IX, XII; Figs. 
6, 99). The original foundation must also have extended nearly or quite to the same 
corner, since otherwise the threshold of the door and courses 13 to 18 of the south wall 


Figure 6. REMAINS OF PREHISTORIC WALL BELOW SOUTH DOORWAY, FROM SOUTHWEST 


west of the door would have been without support (PLaTE VII).2 The absence of the usual 
dressed bed in the rock suggests that the lower part of this foundation at least was not con- 
temporary with the Erechtheum, and this supposition is confirmed by the presence of two 
pieces of undressed Acropolis limestone, the lower resting upon the native rock, beneath 
the south side of the remnant of the mediaeval wall, and separated by a little clean earth 

1 The Greek Commissioners of 1852 found that this wall resembled those in the cistern. It was not part of the 
restoration by Pittakis. See Report Gr. Comm., § 12. 

2 The upper courses of the west end of the south wall rest on the lintel of the door, which is fully supported on 


the east by the lower courses of the south wall (PLatr XII) and on the west by the great block which spans the open- 
ing at the south end of the west wall (Puarss IV, VII, X). 


14 THE ERECHTHEUM 


from the later masonry above (PLats VII; Fig. 6, 1, 2). Now it is characteristic of the 
Helladic walls on the Acropolis that they are built of undressed blocks, usually of Acropolis 
limestone, laid on the natural rock without any prepared bed. It seems reasonable, there- 
fore, to see in these two stones the scanty remains of an early wall which was utilized by 
the builders of the Erechtheum.? This wall probably never extended farther east, for be- 
tween the east face of the lowest block of Acropolis limestone and the west face of the poros 
foundation beneath the jamb* a small wedge of poros (Fig. 6, 4) has been inserted, evidently 
to close the gap between the new foundation of the Erechtheum and the far earlier wall. 
There are also no signs of any foundation for about 0.75 m. beneath the south end of 
the west wall, but here it is unlikely that one ever existed, for the blocks of the west wall 
which extended across this gap to the southwest corner (PLATE IV, courses 16-19; Fig. 78) 
are amply supported by the southern part of the existing foundations,’ and furthermore it 
seems certain that the entire construction at this corner was influenced by the presence of 
an irremovable obstacle.> The foundation of the west wall is composed of three courses of 
marble * on the south of the west door and four courses of poros on the north. All the blocks 
are stretchers, an unusual construction which seems to have been adopted here because it 
was deemed necessary to keep the foundations thin and thus avoid encroaching on the 
precinct to the west of the Erechtheum. It was possible to adopt such a construction with 
safety, since the weight of the west wall with its columns was less than that of any of the 
other three walls. At the north end, as at the south, this foundation was not connected 


1 On the identification of these primitive remains see L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, I,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 
1924, pp. 138-15. 

2 It is by no means improbable that other stones from this prehistoric wall were removed along with the mediaeval 
remains when the area was cleared in 1909, since at that time their exact nature could hardly have been recognized. 
It is, however, also possible that beneath the west end of the south wall the foundation may have been of marble, 
which was removed when the cistern was built. The rock at this point is sufficiently level to receive a foundation which 
was not to support any great weight. Moreover, if the “sea” (p. 170) was in the southwest corner of the temple, the 
foundation at this point would have been visible from the interior, and it seems unlikely that rough prehistoric masonry 
would have been left thus exposed to view. If the cutting in course 20 of the west wall (note 4, below) held one end of 
a bar which aided in supporting the south end of that wall, the other end of the bar would also apparently require a 
support of solid masonry rather than the looser construction of an Helladic wall. These considerations have led to the 
conjectural restoration of a marble foundation at this point in PLatEes XIII and XV, but the possibility of the presence 
of a primitive wall cannot be excluded. 

3 This block (PLarrs IX, XII; Fig. 6, 3) is at present 0.88 m. lorig from north to south, 0.63 m. wide, and 0.47 m. 
high, but the north part has been roughly cut away, doubtless in constructing the cistern. It is probable that the pre- 
historic wall also extended northward and was similarly cut away or torn out, thus endangering the support beneath 
the door. Otherwise it is hard to see why the makers of the cistern should have thought it necessary to build a new 
foundation. 

4 In the top of the block at the south end of course 20 of the west wall, and 0.31 m. from its west edge, is a rec- 
tangular cutting about 0.13 m. high, 0.14-0.17 m. wide, and 0.13 m. deep. At first sight it might seem to be connected 
with the later arrangements for drawing water from the cistern (p. 169), but the marks of the chisel in it show that 
it was made before the block above was laid. It is, therefore, certainly Greek, and was probably cut for a beam of 
wood or iron which supported the block in course 19, otherwise unsupported except for 0.65 m. at its north end, al- 
though it was held in place, on the cantilever principle, by the weight of the great block above it in the west wall. 

5 For a discussion of conditions at the southwest corner see the section on the Cecropium, pp. 127 ff. 

6 Marble was probably used because of its greater strength. This part of the foundations helped to sustain the 
southwest corner of the building, which rested on the great block in the west wall (Puarrs IV, X). 


a ee ee a ee ee as a ee ee ee ee 


Ss ae! SO 


DESCRIPTION 15 


with that of the rest of the building, although here the gap was only 0.13 m. wide. When 
the lining of the great cistern was removed in 1909, so many of the blocks at this end were 
found to be broken or missing that for proper security it was deemed wise to build a new 
wall (PLate X; Fig. 105).! 

Under the Porch of the Maidens and the steps of the south wall the massive stereobate 
of the peristyle of the Old Temple was utilized, so far as possible, as a foundation (PLATE I). 
For this purpose the upper course, the old stylobate, was removed, and the euthynteria 
below cut down 0.02 m. to the level of the new steps, as may be clearly seen near the middle 
of the south side of the Erechtheum and at the west end of the Porch of the Maidens. The 
poros foundation under the steps on the south side of the Porch (Puatss I, II), although 
made for the new building, has the orientation of the older structure, evidently because it 
was laid between and against the foundations of the old peristyle and cella. 

Like the East Portico the North Portico was given a solid foundation, if we may judge 
from what is visible in the crypt and from the condition of the pavement, which nowhere 
shows any sign of settling. 

So far as can be seen clamps were not employed in that part of the foundations which 
was below the level of the ground, though they were freely used in the courses which formed 
the backing of the steps. Dowels appear regularly in these same courses, and are also found, 
though less frequently, in lower courses of both the east and the south walls.” 

On the east and south sides of the building the uppermost course of the foundations, 
except where earlier constructions prevent, extends slightly beyond the lowest step. This 
extension, while fairly uniform on each side, is not the same on both,’ and in this respect 
differs from the usual construction of the Greek euthynteria. On the north and west there 
was never any projecting course, except at the North Portico,* since on these sides the 
lowest step rose from a paved area. 

On the north side of the north wall of the temple and on the east side of the North Por- 
tico remains of a marble pavement, 0.236 m. in thickness, project from under the lowest 
step (PLaTE II). The foundations here have been cut away to receive the pavement, which 
must have been laid before the step was in place, so much is it overlapped by the latter 
(PLATE V; Fig. 1). Elsewhere in this area the pavement itself has disappeared, though 
its foundation of blocks of poros is in great part preserved (Fig. 7).° The slabs of the pave- 

1 There seems to be no record of the exact condition of the north end of this foundation before the modern repairs. 

2 Dowels are visible, for example, between courses 16 and 17 of the east wall and between both courses 16 and 17 
and courses 17 and 18 of the south wall (Pharm XII; Fig. 5). No dowels have been detected in the lower courses of 
the north and west foundations. 

3 On the east side it is about 0.26—-0.28 m.; on the south it is about 0.13 m., or, as cut on the euthynteria of the 
Old Temple, about 0.14 m. At the Porch of the Maidens it is about 0.165 m. on the east, and 0.16—0.17 m. on the south. 

4 On the north side of the portico the projection is about 0.235-0.26 m. and on the west 0.34-0.36 m. 

5 It is possible that the poros foundation of the marble pavement is older than the Erechtheum. It is continued 
for a short distance beneath the flight of steps on the east (Fig. 7 a), though there is no indication that these steps else- 


where had a solid foundation. See Ch. V, p. 427, and L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, III,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 
1924, pp. 414 f. 


MARBLE 
PAVEMENT 
AND STEPS 


16 THE ERECHTHEUM 


ment were carefully fitted with anathyrosis at the joints and were dowelled to the founda- 
tion.! The upper surface never received its final dressing. On the east this pavement was 
bounded by twelve steps, which led to the higher level of the east front (Fig. 7). The be- 
ginning of the two lowest steps is preserved at the south end, and the existence of the others 
is determined by the traces left on the little podium which here supports the East Portico 
(Figs. 1, 7).2. Most of them began on stones of the podium,’ and the broken ends projecting 
from its north face render their position certain; the starting points of the rest are marked 
by anathyrosis on other blocks of the same face (PLatEs V, XIV). This evidence shows 
that the four lowest steps corresponded, as is natural, to the three steps and the moulded 
course (which is of the same height as the steps, i.e., one Attic foot) at the base of the north 
wall; the others were each one-half the height of an ordinary course of the wall or three- 
quarters of an Attic foot. The exposed faces of the steps and of the podium were not given 
the usual smooth dressing, but were finished with a carefully drafted horizontal band along 
the base of each step and of each course of the podium and a vertical band at the junction 
of the latter with the north wall of the building (PLarns V, IX; Figs. 1, 7).4 It is probable 
that this stairway extended at least as far north as the pavement at its foot. 

The northern edge of the pavement was apparently in line with the euthynteria of the 
front of the North Portico, for at the northeast corner of the portico the north face of the 
stone in the pavement is carefully finished without anathyrosis, and farther east the poros 
foundation extends only 0.60 m. beyond this line (PLatE I). On this side the pavement 
must have finished against the construction which here masked the rough lower courses of 
the wall of the Acropolis. This wall, which was certainly built before the Erechtheum, 
changes its direction at a point in line with the east cross-wall of the temple from some- 
what south of west to northwest, and a little farther on turns once more toward the west 
(PLATE I). In this short stretch the upper part of the wall has been rebuilt and now fur- 
nishes no clear evidence as to the ancient conditions on the inside; but it seems probable that 
the ground here was at the same level as farther west, or approximately that given later to 
the bottom step of the North Portico and the adjacent pavement. North of the East Cella 
of the Erechtheum, however, and consequently north of the greater part of the paved area, 
only the four upper courses of the wall have been given on the inside the smooth dressing 
of visible surfaces, and the presence of two loopholes or windows in the third course sug- 

1 The fourth block from the east (PLATE II) was about 0.07-0.08 m. broader than the others, as its north edge is 
preserved beyond the point where the joint would fall had this block been in line with those on either side of it. It is 
hard to assign a reason for this irregularity. 

* For the construction of the podium on blocks of the north wall, see Ch. II, p. 220. 

3 The stones of the podium which were in contact with the three upper steps are lying on the ground near at hand. 
They are broken but clearly recognizable. 

4 These bands are about 0.04 m. wide and about 0.007 m. deep. They resemble in some respects the smooth bands 
often found at joints to show the level of the finished surface, but are cut back at right angles, not obliquely, and the 
joints themselves are not bevelled as a protection against injury before the final dressing (see Ch. II, p. 200; Fowler 


and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, p. 103, fig. 56). It was, therefore, probably intended to leave the 
exposed faces untouched, and thus secure a contrast with the smooth wall of the main building. 


1" 


ar 
a 
i 


Figure 7. AREA NORTH OF THE ERECHTHEUM: (A) FROM NORTHEAST, AS CLEARED IN 1887. 
(B) FROM WEST, IN 1914 


[17] 


CREPIS 


COLUMNS 


18 THE ERECHTHEUM 


gests that there was a platform or gallery along the inside of the wall at the bottom of the 
fourth course, which is about 2.25 m. above the pavement (Fig. 7).1 It is a natural suppo- 
sition that when the wall was built, the lower courses were masked by an inner wall, parallel 
to the outer and at such distance from it as to secure a platform of the desired width. Unless 
the platform was extremely wide (PLats I), this masking wall cannot have formed the 
northern boundary of the pavement, and it is probable that here, as on the east, the pave- 
ment ended at the foot of a flight of steps. Since the level of the platform along the face 
of the wall was nearly a metre lower than that at the east front of the Erechtheum, there 
were probably only eight steps on this side instead of twelve.? The carefully laid marble 
pavement suggests that this area was of special importance and the broad flight of stairs 
along the east side seems designed quite as much to accommodate spectators as to furnish 
communication between the two levels. If this be admitted, other steps or seats along the 
face of the Acropolis wall are easy to understand.? 

The steps of the building are clamped both to one another and to their backing, and 
dowelled. In the East Portico T-dowels are visible in a corner block of the uppermost step, 
and in several blocks, not only in the corners, of the lowest step (PLatEs XVI, XVIII). 
North of the northeast anta of the building, two —4_ clamps extend a little into the visible 
upper surface of the lowest step, thus preserving the regular alignment of the vertical 
joints in the western face of the podium (PLatTE IX; Fig. 1) without giving to the corner 
block of the step an unusual shape or size. These clamps were countersunk and then con- 
cealed by setting over them a rectangular piece of marble (PLatm XVII, 4; Fig. 17). 
Stylobate and steps alike have a batter on the vertical face, averaging 0.003 m. per course, 
and the upper surface of the steps has apparently been given a very slight inclination in 
order to throw the water away from the building. The pavements of the East and North 
Porticoes, however, are certainly horizontal. Tests of the steps failed to yield any satis- 
factory evidence of curvature, for such minute variations in level as appeared were irregular 
and apparently due to displacement by earthquakes or by the numerous accidents which 
have so shaken the Erechtheum. 


II. Tue East Facape 


The absence of the north column of the East Portico, which was removed by Lord Elgin, 
makes possible an examination of the stylobate on which it was placed. The conditions 
here revealed exist presumably under the other columns of the building. Intersecting scratch 


‘ For a discussion of the probable levels here before the Erechtheum was built, see Ch. V, pp. 424 ff., and L. B. 
Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, II, III, IV,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 151 ff., 414 ff., 430 ff., who has attempted a 
reconstruction of the architectural history of this area. 

2 Tf the steps had the same dimensions as those on the east, the seven lowest would have a total width of 2.275 m. 
the eighth would, of course, coincide with the platform. The total height of the eight steps would be 2.264 m. 

* The resemblance of this arrangement to the stepped theatral areas of the Cretan palaces is striking. The cults 
connected with the Erechtheum are certainly very old, and it is not impossible that the surroundings in which they 
were celebrated preserved in essentials their early form. 


DESCRIPTION 19 


lines, now very faint, respectively parallel to and at right angles with the edge of the stylo- 
bate, mark the axis of the base (PLatus II, XVIII, 2). In the centre is a square cutting 
which tapers slightly toward its bottom, exactly as do the cuttings in the upper and lower 
surfaces of column drums. Like these it doubtless contained an empolion,! which aided in 
turning the base on its axis through a small arc in the process of giving it a true bed. This 
explanation is strengthened by a slight depression of the surrounding surface such as is usual 
in the joint of acolumn. The pin would also serve to fix the base accurately in its final posi- 
tion; a matter of great importance since the base was fully finished before it was set in place. 

The axial distances of the columns measured on the stylobate are equal (2.114 m.) but, 
though each column is placed on a separate stone, the joints of the stylobate are not ar- 
ranged with absolute symmetry (PLATE II). 

The statement sometimes made,” that Ionic columns are not inclined like Doric but are 
strictly vertical, does not hold true of the Erechtheum. Thus it may be easily shown that 
in the East Portico, while the antae were vertical, the adjacent columns at the corners were 
inclined toward the centre of the facade. It is, of course, clear that the capitals of the anta 
and of the adjacent column are directly under the epistyle, and that their axes coincide with 
its axis and consequently with each other. The southern blocks of the epistyle of the East 
Portico are in place, and the distance from the middle of the central block to the axis of the 
block over the southern anta, that is, to the axis of the anta itself, is 5.265 m.* The lowest 
members of both antae have likewise remained undisturbed, and one-half their axial dis- 
tance is also 5.265 m. Hence, since both base and capital are at the same distance from the 
axis of the building, the anta is vertical. As, however, the lowest member of the anta is 
worked on a block of the stylobate, it is possible at the northeast corner to compare its axis 
with that of the adjacent column, as indicated by the scratch lines already mentioned, since 
both may be measured to the north edge of the stylobate (PLarm XVIII, 2), and it thus 
becomes evident that the axis of the bottom of the column is 0.02 m. (one Attic dactyl) 
farther from the centre of the front than the axis of the anta. Therefore, since the axis of 
the anta is vertical and the axis of the column coincides with that of the anta at the top, the 
column is inclined toward the centre 0.02 m. in its height of 6.586 m. This inclination toward 
the centre is confined to the corner columns; the four others are vertical in this direction. 

The columns of the East Portico are also inclined toward the east wall of the temple, 
as is shown by a comparison of measurements made from the face of the anta, which is 
vertical,‘ to the axis of the adjacent column at its bottom and at its top.® The distance at 

1 Rather than the lower part of a solid wooden dowel, the only other possibility. 

2 Cf., for example, Durm, Baukunst der Griechen,’ p. 298. 

3 All these measurements were taken before the repairs of 1907, during which some of these blocks were removed 
and carefully replaced. 

4 Tests with the steel square show that the east face of the anta is vertical. Moreover, tested by the same 
method the east wall was vertical, and the projection of the anta from the face of the wall is the same at the top 


as at the bottom. 
5 At the top the actual measuring was done on the inside of the epistyle. 


20 i THE ERECHTHEUM 


the bottom of the column is 0.02 m. greater than at the top, and this is accordingly the 
amount of the inclination.’ 

The total height of the columns is 6.586 m. (6.56 m. = 20 At. ft.), comprising the base, 
four drums of varying heights, and the capital. The joint of the base is above the upper 
torus, that of the capital between the guilloche and the egg-and-dart moulding. The joints 
in the shafts of the columns are perpendicular to the axis of the column; the joint in the 
base is horizontal and probably that in the capital as well. 

Repeated observations, both in the flutes, and on the fillets between the flutes, wherever 
the surface was sufficiently preserved to admit of measurement, failed to reveal any entasis 
in the columns of the East Portico.2, Their diminution is in a straight line, a fact already 
noted for Greek Ionic columns in general by Laloux.’ | 

The capitals of all the columns of the Erechtheum have suffered grievous damage and 
none of the volutes is now perfect. The most nearly complete is the southeast volute of the 
fourth column from the south in the East Portico (Fig. 9). This is but slightly damaged at 
its top, and fortunately exact measurements for the missing portion may be readily taken 
from other volutes of this facade. It was, therefore, chosen for an investigation of the spiral 
according to the following method. 

The principal line of the volute was drawn full size with great care. Three points on 
the volute between A and B were selected and the centre of a circle found, the circumfer- 
ence of which would pass through the three points (Fig. 8). A number of other similar 
trials were made, always keeping the three points within the arc A-B, with the result that 
the centre was always found to fall at 1. When, however, one of the three points lay be- 
tween B and C, the centre no longer remained at 1. In other words the volute as far as B — 
but no farther — could be struck with the arc of a circle having its centre at 1. In the same 
way the portion of the volute between B and C was tested. Its centre fell at 2, a point on 
the line B-1. Therefore an arc of a circle described from 2 as a centre, with a radius equal 
to B-2, is tangent to the arc A-B, and coincides with the curve of the volute as far as C. 

1 For the inclination of the columns of the North Portico, see p. 80. 

? Four sets of readings were made in the tests for entasis. On the southeast column one set was taken on a fillet 
over a distance of 2.94 m. from the neck down, below which point the fillet was too much broken to yield sure results; 
another set was taken in a flute for the whole height of the column. The third set was taken in a flute of the second 
column from the south for 4.50 m. from the neck. The fourth was on a fillet of the third column from the south for 


3.43 m. from the neck (the fillet was broken below this point). All readings were taken on the east side of the columns 
where the surface of the marble is least damaged. 

Early observers thought that they detected an entasis. Inwood (ed. maj., Book XXII, p. 103) states that at three- 
fifths of its height the diameter of the shaft was 0.525 in. greater than it would have been, had the diminution been 
in a straight line. He gives similar figures for the west (0.442 in.) and north (0.628 in.) columns. Jenkins (Stuart and 
Revett,? IV, pp. 4, 5; pl. V) published a plate of several columns in Athens, including one from the East Portico, with 
their measured entases. It seems probable that the measurements that yielded these results were made without due 
regard to the preservation of the surface at the points chosen. 
om § Laloux, L’ Architecture grecque, p. 90: “L’entasis, ou renflement du galbe, ne semble pas avoir existé dans l’ordre 
ionique; contrairement 4 ce qui dit Vitruve, les deux diamétres sont joints par une ligne droite.”’ This statement is 
too sweeping, however, as the columns of the North Portico have an entasis (p. 81). The columns of the West 
Fagade, which also have an entasis, belong to the Roman repairs (p. 66). 


1 ° 5: 10 CM 
pug pp 


Figure 8. EAST PORTICO: GRAPHIC METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING THE IONIC VOLUTE 


[21] 


22 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The rest of the volute was investigated in the same way, establishing the series of centres 
from 3 to 11 inclusive. ! 

The important point in these results is that, once the centre of the eye of the volute has 
been fixed, the other centres may be easily determined with a vertical line, a pair of com- 


Figure 9. EAST PORTICO: SOUTH EXTERIOR VOLUTE, 
FOURTH COLUMN FROM SOUTH 

passes, and a 45° triangle. As there were twenty volutes on the East Portico, all alike, it is 
natural to suppose that there must have been some convenient way of laying them out. 

There are several examples of volutes which still show the centres from which they were 
described. The most noteworthy is the Ionic capital from Ephesus, now in the British 
Museum.! In the case of the volute of the East Portico of the Erechtheum only centre 11 
is visible to-day; the others were probably removed in the final dressing. 

The inscriptions record the purchase of gold leaf for gilding the eyes of the columns,” and 
on the capital of the southernmost column the eyes of the volutes on the east side — those 
on the south side are missing — are drilled for the reception of a metal or wooden pin 


1 Br. Mus., Sculpture, II, pp. 181 f., No. 1223. See also Lethaby, Greek Buildings, pp. 204-205. 
2 Cf. Ch. IV, Inscription XVII, col. 1, ll. 41-43. 


DESCRIPTION 23 


(Fig. 10).1 It may have been intended to drill the eyes of the volutes of the other capitals 
also, for they resemble those of the southernmost column in being flat discs (PLATE 
XXXVI, 2; Fig. 9), or the gilding may have been applied to them by some other method. 


Figure 10, EAST PORTICO: CAPITAL OF THE SOUTH COLUMN 


A series of drill holes, close together, is visible in the inner end of the groove of the 
volutes of these capitals. These holes were originally bored to aid in cutting the groove 
and were not entirely removed in the final chiselling. 

Dowels and shift holes show that the blocks of the epistyle on the east front were placed 
in position from north to south, and that this operation was continued along the south wall 
toward the west.” ; 

The eastern frieze was laid in the opposite direction to the epistyle, beginning at the 
' south and working toward the north, as is proved by pry holes on the epistyle, and by cut- 
tings for dowels in both epistyle and frieze (Fig. 11). The second block of the frieze from 
the north, now lying on the ground, has a cutting for a dowel in each end, though only the 
one at the north was actually used, as pry holes on the epistyle * beneath show that the block 


1 The hole is 0.032 m. deep and 0.008 m. in diameter. 

2 For the order in which the epistyle and frieze were laid on the north and south walls, see p. 53. 

3 This epistyle block is in the British Museum (Sculpture, I, p. 237, No. 413). The back has been cut away, de- 
stroying the dowel, but the position and cutting of the two pry holes show that they were used for a block south of 
them. These pry holes are now concealed by the black marble representing the frieze. 


EPISTYLE 
AND FRIEZE 


CORNICE 


TYMPANUM 


24 THE ERECHTHEUM 


next in order to the south was placed first. On the south wall, however, the frieze was laid 
from east to west. It thus appears that\in this part of the building the southeast corner 
block of the frieze was the first to be put in place, and that the work proceeded both north 
and west from this point. The backing of the frieze across the south end of the portico was 
held to the frieze by two 4 clamps, one 0.876 m. and the other 1.815 m. from the east 
face of the frieze (PLATE XVIII, top, right; Fig. 12). A scratch line on the top of the epistyle 
marks the position of the frieze, which was set 0.054 m. back of the upper fascia of the 
epistyle. The face of the frieze contains numerous cuttings for the dowels by which the 
white marble sculptures were attached (Piatss III, XX], 1).' 

Dalton’s drawing (PLATE L, 1) shows that in 1749 the cornice was still in place on the 
southern half of the East Portico. Subsequently it fell, or was removed, but the blocks, 
though considerably damaged, were found on the Acropolis in 1903-05 and, by the corre- 
spondence of cuttings for clamps and for dowels into the frieze, their position and order 
were determined. In 1907 these blocks were replaced (PLATE XXI, 1, 2), probably correctly, 
in spite of slight irregularities at the joint between the third and fourth blocks from the 
south.2 The cornice block at the southeast corner was the first laid and was fastened to the 
frieze by two T-dowels, respectively 1.67 m. and 0.736 m. from the southeast corner of the 
frieze (PLATE X XI, 2). According to the evidence of shift holes and cuttings for dowels, the 
work of placing the other blocks then proceeded, as in the case of the frieze, in both direc- 
tions from this corner stone, down the south side and across the east front (Fig. 12). The 
upper surface of the cornice shows no trace of the presence of sculptures in the pediment.® 

The eastern tympanum does not appear in any of the early drawings and no fragments 
have been found which can be assigned to it with certainty. It may, however, be recon- 
structed from the statements in the inscriptions, the traces on the upper surface of the 
horizontal cornice, and the remains of the Roman restoration of the western pediment. 
The epigraphical evidence is fully presented in the commentary on the inscriptions,‘ and the 
conclusions there reached are adopted in the following discussion. 

In the east cornice the position of the joint between the fourth and fifth blocks, counting 
from the south, as determined by the evidence of the frieze, falls on the axis of the building 
(PLate XXI, 1). Two cuttings for dowels in the top of the cornice, on either side of this 
joint and equally distant from it (PLaTn XXI, 2), imply that the central stone of the tym- 
panum was also centred on the axis, and the length of the other stones of the tympanum 


1 For the sculptures of the frieze see Ch. III, pp. 239-276; Phares XL-XLVI. 

* The cutting for the | clamp which united these two blocks, contrary to the usual custom, does not form a 
straight line (PLare XXI, 2). Moreover, the axial distance of the ornament on the bed moulding to the south of the 
joint is 0.007 m. less than that of the ornament immediately to the right and left of it. The usual axial distance is 
0.107 m. There is a similar difference, though only of 0.005 m., at the joint under the central pediment stone, and there 
are other examples of such variation in the Erechtheum, but they are rare. 

* For the parabolic curve given the soffit of the corona of the cornice, see Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 51, fig. 13. It 
closely resembles that of the North Portico, ef. p. 93. 

“ See Ch. IV, Inscription X, col. 1, ll. 8-27; Commentary, pp. 359 ff. 


QAOG’ WOIJ UIs Sv FUT[IGO s[queUl 9Y} PUB 9dIUIOD 94} JO SYOO[G OY} 9}edIpUl Soul] _p2z}0q 


AZAIWA JO dOL AO NVId :OOILHOd LSVH “Sl THOS 


(pa eiee surat er se caren = ereee sont ag rns Somme) Genie RcIgncaa) os a wae mee oI ern re area ae gence eee eae e neces nes ceeea cee eececers cng tentaecensceersecetentcnesrssenceessscysccasnrasesesarswaseneees cessesanss ccs ansbecsssacasensacraneraseessepaassssasrseyssecarsrascsebersrasunacascerenerensacaysers 


i 


can ae OEE EEE EEE 


Yj Uy as : A a Aa LC 


H obs 


weeseseny fF | peceresteq 5 ff pacecesana 


Seemeesend ho UN Wicamensiaihit 9D. Sie erate cel We mM Seater ene nie 


pcetnawsoy” he me ae eee aeeeee the Ra eee ees 


preseensssy, tN ptimomreensy 8 fl pewmesencsg 0 Nise ee oy 


Resenscsced. 8 20). Rpcesesend) oa) eave cence MO Piece i ree ne aall 


14 9N3 4 oo @ 43 Ditav = v c i2 ' o 8 o Sauian v e z ‘ ° 


@ZalIJ BY} JO SYOO[G oY} Sezvorpul Surgoyey] 
GAVULIHOUV 40 dOL dO NWId :OOILYOd LSVA “TT THOS 


Rot 


44 Diaav S vy, € t 


sTuLaw v7 é z ' ie Lar ee 


ro TO ee 


2 ee 


bie ween - ewe ee ee 


— 624'°0 —><—-1GS'0—><— 9&L'0 +> 


Oe'l => 


_— 


[ 25 J 


26 THE ERECHTHEUM 


as given in the inscriptions shows, as was to be expected, that they too were symmetrically 
placed on either side. The position of the pry holes and dowels also indicates that the cen- 
tral stone was dowelled at both ends, and consequently was set in place before the blocks 
on either side of it. Its length as indicated by the dowels was about 1.68 m., which agrees 
with the length (5 At. ft. = 1.64 m.) given in the inscription. Its thickness, according to 
the weather marks on the cornice, which show that the tympanum was set about 0.03 m. 
in front of the face of the frieze, was about 0.30 m., a trifle less than the one Attic foot 
(0.328 m.) of the inscription. 

The stones on either side of the centre were, according to the inscription, seven Attic 
feet in length, and the absence of any cutting for dowels on the upper surface of the third 
cornice block from the south shows that it came under the middle of such a long stone. The 
next block is so badly damaged that no trace of any dowel is left, but the stone from the 


Figure 13. FRAGMENT FROM ANGLE OF RAKING CORNICE, 
NOW PLACED AT SOUTH END OF EAST PEDIMENT 


southeast corner has preserved a cutting, evidently for the dowel which secured the angle 
block of the tympanum. This cutting, however, does not mark the position of the angle 
itself, which fell 0.38 m. to the south, where the stone has been dressed to receive the raking 
cornice. If the tympanum block ended at the dowel, the angle of the tympanum was prob- 
ably worked on the raking cornice. If, however, the tympanum block came to a feather 
edge — an unusual construction, — the dowel, which was nearer the axis of the temple 
than the feather edge, could have been easily leaded from above. The southeast cornice 
block itself is broken on all sides, and its exact distance from the centre can only be fixed by 
calculation. As drawn in PLate XXI, its position is determined by the dressing for the 
raking cornice, which is so placed as to agree with the inclination (1:4) assigned to the 
pediment in the commentary on the inscriptions (p. 360), and actually found in the Roman 
pediment block of the West Facade. In the restoration of 1907 this fragment of the cornice 
was set 0.11 m. farther south. 

The backing of the tympanum has disappeared, but in the central blocks of the cornice 
are cuttings for the dowels which held it in place. The position of the pry hole, however, 


DESCRIPTION 27 


shows that the northern dowel belonged to the stone north of the centre, and that the cen- 
tral backer was dowelled only at the south end. It would seem, therefore, that the backing 
was laid in a different order from the stones in front. 

The length of the blocks of the raking cornice is known only from the inscriptions,' where 
two blocks, each four and one-half Attic feet long, are mentioned. The weathering on the 
horizontal cornice at the southeast angle shows that there the width of the raking cornice 
was 0.72m. This width, however, could not have been continued higher on the pediment, 
for it is not sufficient to enable the raking cornice, in conjunction with the projecting sima 
above it, to be securely balanced over the tympanum. It is, therefore, not surprising to find 
that in the inscription the width is given as two and one-half Attic feet, or about 0.82 m., 
which is sufficient to secure a stable equilibrium for both cornice and sima. At the angles 
a similar width was not required, since there the raking cornice rested on the projecting 
portion of the horizontal cornice. As no part of the east raking cornice has survived except 
perhaps the small fragment now replaced at the south corner (PLATE III; Fig. 13),? the 
data for the reconstruction (PLATES XIII, XVI) have been taken from the Roman raking 
cornice of the west pediment (PLatEs XIX, XX). 


Ill. THe CrErine or tHe East Portico 


On the epistylia of the East Facade, behind the frieze, are differences of dressing, together 
with a series of cuttings for dowels and pry holes, which from their direction were made for 
blocks running from east to west. On the three fragments of epistylia from the east wall 
there are also just such differences of dressing, and dowels and a pry hole just so placed as 
on the epistyle over the columns (Fig. 11). The evidence furnished by the dressing, dowel 
cuttings, and pry holes makes possible the reconstruction of the ceiling of the portico. 
At the second dowel from the south end of the epistyle over the columns the surface of the 
stone is slightly raised for a distance of 0.55 m., i. e., 0.275 m. on either side of the dowel 
(PLatE XVII, bottom, over A). Farther north (PLATE XVII, over B and C) the epistyle 
also shows a special finish which indicates that something about 0.382 m. wide rested on 
these points. In view of the well-known relation in width between the beams and coffers of 
a stone ceiling, there can be no doubt that the narrower marks (0.32 m.) belong to the beams 
and the wider (0.55 m.) to the stones which were placed in the spaces between each pair of 
beams, and on which the profile of the beams was continued from the sides across the ends 
of each division of the ceiling. These stones may for convenience be called ‘‘interbeams.”’ 
The bearing of beams and interbeams on the wall was about 0.215 m. as compared with a 
bearing, in most cases, of 0.36 m. over the columns. 

_ On laying out the framework of the ceiling in accordance with the indications thus pre- 
served, it at once becomes clear that there was a beam at each end (north and south), as is 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 11, ll. 80-86. 
2 This fragment could equally well come from the eastern angle of the pediment of the North Portico. 


RAKING 
CORNICE 


BEAMS AND 
INTERBEAMS 


98 THE ERECHTHEUM 


frequently the case, and further, that, contrary to the usual construction, there was no 
beam on the axis of the temple (Fig. 11).’ 

While the evidence of pry holes and dowels shows that over the columns the majority 
of the beams extended to the frieze, it is also certain that in some cases their bearing on the 
epistyle was less (PLatE XVII, bottom; Fig. 11). Dowel cuttings in the epistyle show that 
the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh beams extended to the frieze. There are no re- 
mains of dowels for the fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth beams, but the dressing of the 

surface of the epistyle for the sixth indicates that this 


pe Nove. Ghee also was of full length.2 Nothing is known about the 
two northernmost beams, as the back of the northern 

F | epistyle block (now in the British Museum) has been 
cut away. Only two of the interbeams from this side 

of the ceiling have preserved their north ends, and 


Fiaure 14. EAST PORTICO, CEILING: both have the remains of a projecting elbow on this 

INTER BEAMS (WET ELe ON er side at the back, evidently to fill the space between 

oT gee ee the end of a short beam and the frieze (Fig. 14). It is 

clear, therefore, that of the five northern beams at least two, and possibly more, did not 

reach the frieze. Since the shorter beams were not dowelled at their eastern ends, so far 

as can be ascertained, it is probable that the interbeams with projecting elbows were laid 

before the shorter beams to their north. In that case the ceiling was constructed from south 
to north. 

Beams and interbeams were both placed before the frieze, since after the frieze was in 
position they could not have been dowelled, as they generally were, at their east ends (Fig. 
11); moreover, the back of the frieze in some places shows a difference of dressing above and 
below a line which exactly corresponds with the height of the interbeams over the columns 
(PuatE IX). This was also the height of the beams, for two of the interbeams have cuttings 
at their south ends for k= clamps by which they were secured to the adjacent beams; since 
the tops of the coffer blocks were at the same level, a continuous surface was thus secured. 
The presence of a dowel in the upper surface at the north end of an interbeam and of — 
clamps in the top of the frieze shows that the space between the top of the ceiling and the 
bed of the cornice was filled by a special course of stone, the évri@juara of the inscription,* 
laid horizontally. A dowel cutting in the only block of the cornice sufficiently preserved to 
yield any evidence, shows that the cornice was dowelled to these backers as well as to the 
frieze. 


Only a single fragment (0.60 m. long) of the beams has heen identified; it is of character- 


1 The only other instance which has been observed is in the opisthodomos of the Theseum; cf. A.J. A., XV, 1911, 
pp. 19-22. 


2 The pry hole east of the fourth beam (Puare XVII; Fig. 11), is not conclusive evidence that this beam was 
full length. 


® See Ch. IV, Inscription VIII a, 1. 23, and Commentary, p. 349; Fig. 188. 


DESCRIPTION 29 


istic Roman work.! The interbeams are much better preserved. Six blocks in various stages 
of dilapidation agree with the traces on the epistyle over the columns (Fig. 15). All are of 
Greek workmanship but show a slight alteration in connection with later repairs, when the 
uppermost moulding of the face, probably a bead-and-reel, was cut away, and thereafter 
worked as a projection from the under surface of the Roman coffer blocks. The block which 
has been replaced on the building was not put in its original position, which is not certainly 
known, but at a point where the epistyle offered a firm bed (PLatE IX). 

From over the east wall five fragmentary interbeams have survived. In addition to be- 
ing shallower they are also 0.17 m. lower than those over the columns (PLATE XVI, right). 


Ficur£ 15. EAST PORTICO, CEILING: INTERBEAM FROM ABOVE 
COLUMNS, NOW REPLACED 


Two were cut, apparently in Roman times, from a Greek ceiling beam, which presumably 
had been damaged and rendered useless for its original purpose; both show dowel cuttings 
of a late type. The three others were newly made in connection with the Roman repairs 
of the ceiling. 

The interbeams preserved vary in length from 0.53 m. to 0.56m. The original set 
averaged 0.557 m. in length (Phare XVIII, right). 

The fact that the beams were damaged and replaced makes it probable that the original 
coffer blocks suffered a like fate, and in fact among the many fragments? of coffers (Fig. 16), 
which by fulfilling the given conditions clearly belong to this ceiling, none shows Greek 


1 The adjective Roman is used throughout this book to describe work done during the Roman period without any 
implication as to the nationality of the workmen, who were probably Greeks. For the Roman repairs to the Erech- 
theum see Ch. II, pp. 223 ff. 

2 One fragment is in the British Museum (Sculpture, I, p. 238, No. 417). 


COFFERS 


30 THE ERECHTHEUM 


workmanship. The conditions are that they shall fit a rectangle 1.516 m. by 0.557 m. (with- 
out deducting the projection of the egg-and-dart moulding, 0.032 m., on each side) and that 
they shall have a bearing surface all around of 0.07 m., measured from the front of the eggs 
(PLates XVI, XVIII, 3). A rabbet around the open centre of the coffer shows that a slab 
was inserted to form the ground; such an 
arrangement made it easier for the work- 
man to carve the egg-and-dart moulding, 
while from below the effect was that of a 
solid coffer.! In the North Portico and the 
Porch of the Maidens, where the coffers 
were solid, the corresponding mouldings 
were painted, not carved. The space be- 
tween the coffers varies in different blocks 
from 0.152 m. to 0.171 m. The height of the 
stones in which the coffers are cut is that 
of the rabbet in the beams and interbeams, 
0.17m. No traces of color on the mouldings 


or forming a fret have been observed.? 


IV. Tue East WALL ? 


The transformation of the Erechtheum into 
a church, and the consequent erection of an 
apse at the east end, led to the disappear- 
ance of the east wall between the antae. It 
will, therefore, be more convenient to de- 
scribe the latter before considering the re- 
construction of the wall itself. 

The south anta has never been over- 


Figure 16. EAST PORTICO, CEILING: FRAGMENT thrown. Its axis is vertical, as has already 
OF COFFER (ROMAN) 


(p. 19) been shown, and on its south face the 
ANTAE anta tapers regularly toward the top without entasis. The east face is vertical. The eleven 
courses average 0.489 m. in height, the greatest variation from this being only 0.002 m. 
The north anta, which was complete in 1801, had almost wholly disappeared in 1819,4 
but was partially rebuilt in 1838, though not all the stones were correctly replaced. The 
1 The coffers in the ceiling of the Theseum had similar lids. 
2 Cf. Inwood, pl. XX, where a painted decoration is shown. Inwood states in his text (ed. maj., p. 126; ed. min., 
p. 14 = von Quast, p. 173) that only the smooth surface of the fret was left, and that on the plate the maeander was 
restored from the coffers of the North Portico. 


’ Cf. Gorham Phillips Stevens, ‘The East Wall of the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., X, 1906, pp. 47-71. 
* Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 348: Thiirmer, Ansichten von Athen (reproduced Puate LIII, 2). 


DESCRIPTION dl 


capital is now in the British Museum,! and of the other blocks only two are missing. 
In 1909 the anta was reconstructed and the stones restored, as far as possible, to their 
original positions. There are two tests for determining the place in the anta of any given 
block: the taper, whereby the width of each course, measured on the east face, is 0.0009 m. 
less than that of the course below; and the system of bonding, which requires that the longer 
face of the blocks shall be alternately on the east and north sides. The courses preserved 


BOTTOM 
OF 
STONE A 


Figure 17. EAST PORTICO: NORTH ANTA, SHOWING THE PECULIAR SHAPE GIVEN 
TO THE ORTHOSTATE: ISOMETRIC 


vary little from an average height of 0.487 m., except the fourth from the top (Fig. 19, 
stone D), which is only 0.48 m. high. In this anta the block which corresponds to the ortho- 
state of the south anta was cut in a peculiar shape (Fig. 17, A), in order that the regularity 
of the bonding in the north wall might not be disturbed. The stone had been broken and 
the two pieces separated, but by the aid of plaster impressions the connection of the frag- 
ments was assured, and they were correctly replaced, along with the adjoining block, in 
1909. A T-dowel, leaded from under the overhanging portion, shows that this block was 
set before the stone which it overhangs. The latter (Fig. 17, B) is recognizable by the lack 
of the usual clamps at one end, and by the presence on the upper surface of a series of cut- 
tings like pry holes, apparently to aid in pushing the block into place by means of a crowbar 
secured to a fulcrum at the western end of A. 

The profile of the bases of the columns is repeated on the bases of the antae, but is raised 
slightly above the stylobate by the insertion of a small additional member (PLatres XVI, 
XVIII; Fig. 18), in order that the top step and the moulded course below the orthostates 


1 Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409. See Phate XXXVI, 3, 5. 


WALL 


a2 THE ERECHTHEUM 


may be equal to a wall course (PLATES V, XVI). The joint in the base falls between the 
scotia and the upper torus. The lower torus, unlike that of the columns, is reeded. The base 
moulding of the south anta is continued with a slightly smaller projection (about 0.006 m. 
less) along the south wall (PLate XVIII). 

The preservation of the antae permits certain conclusions to be drawn as to the con- 
struction of the east wall. The orthostates of the antae are placed with the short face to the 
east, and the distance between them (Fig. 19, X-Y), which can be exactly measured, is 


Figure 18. EAST PORTICO: BASES OF SOUTH COLUMN 
AND ANTA, FROM SOUTH 


9.103 m., or seven times 1.30 m. (4 At. ft.), the normal length of the stones used in the 
other walls of the building and presumably in the east wall also. This presumption is 
strengthened by the fact that the dowel for securing the base moulding (Fig. 19, at A), which 
on the south side breaks joints regularly with the orthostates, is 0.65 m. (one-half of 1.30 m.) 
from X, and that the long stones of the anta, B and C, overhang the shorter ones by the same 
amount — as is clear from the position of the joint at Y and from the T-dowel in the upper 
surface of B, — thus implying that the same general system of bonding prevailed here as in 
other parts of the building. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume in reconstructing the east 
wall that the unit was a block 1.30 m. in length. In Figure 19 this unit is shown in the epi- 
cranitis or wall capital, which may be assumed to have extended, as in the North Portico, 
from anta to anta without interruption. The orthostates have entirely disappeared, except 
at the antae, and it is impossible to determine whether they were composed of single blocks, 
or, as in the north and south walls, of two blocks, each one-half the thickness of the wall. 


Pr. 


—e |) eee 


ee tS ae eS ee ee, 


———— 


SMOG 
as Rae aS 
Ces Pa 
Rae oeeeel| 
U 


N 
‘ 


a 


. Hy | 
N i | 
VK I] 
Ny N ® 
l a 
N 
) 
. 4 
NV | 
ll 
NX | 
| 
\ NY 
| 


I is 
l | é 
NES 


NT Wh LY AT TAY, 7 a a ~ HN 
on LNAI 
ose 16 £at ‘< Gar Gav bay’ 6HY < tae \ 


WS 


Ah 
ire NY \ 


N 2 2 
jan ERE 
N ho 
Ve 
N: 5: 
\ Eg 
\ a 3 


34 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The beginning of the east wall is preserved on the stones of the antae, and measure- 
ments show that it was 0.639 m. thick and without batter, and these peculiarities serve to 
differentiate its blocks from those belonging to the other walls. Thus the north and south 
walls are 0.675 m. thick and slope slightly inward (see p. 46), so that both faces of the blocks 
are inclined; the west wall, which is intact, has the same thickness but the faces are vertical ; 
the cross-walls of the interior, which have disappeared, were 0.65 m. thick and without 
batter. Moreover, the whole interior of the building seems to have suffered from a fire which 
severely injured the inner, but not the outer, face of the exterior walls, and undoubtedly 
both faces of the cross-walls. Simple inspection, therefore, is often sufficient to show whether 
a block is from an exterior wall, and which is its inner and which its outer face. 

Three stones (Fig. 19, E, F, and G; cf. also Figs. 20, 21, 24), found in or about the 
Erechtheum, while corresponding to the blocks from the east wall in their thickness, absence 
of batter, and damage by fire on one face only, exhibit also some special peculiarities, which 
make possible a reconstruction of this part of the temple. The inner face of these stones has 
been so injured that the width can nowhere be directly measured. It can, however, be 
ascertained with considerable accuracy by combining the evidence derived from the cuttings 
for clamps, dowels, and pry holes, which observation shows were placed with a fair degree 
of symmetry about the axis of a wall.! This method gives a width for all three stones but 
very slightly in excess of 0.639 m., the known thickness of the east wall. 

1 In the following table, column A contains the axial distance between a pair of clamps or dowels; column B 


twice the distance from the preserved face of the stone to the axis of the nearest clamp or dowel; and column C the 
sum of these two, or the calculated width of the stone. 


STONE E. (Fig. 20) A B Cc 
Clataps in upper surfaces ss. oa. cee. eee ee eee 0.3738 + 2(0.142) = 0.657 
Dowels in upper surface... see oe ee eee 0.292 + 2(0.182) = 0.656 
Dowels in wader suriace (lefh) si. osc, coe eee 0.838 + 2(0.125) + 0.05 = 0.63 
Dowels in undersurface (right) ic.7 +i aay ee 0.325 + 2(0.165) = 0.655 
Twice the distance from tace of stone to axis of pry hole .. 2(0.30) = 0.60 
Twice the distance from face of stone to axis of shift hole in 

Abottom (left) os. 0 Gates ee eae oy shld ae Se 2(0.32) = 0.64 
Twice the distance from face of stone to axis of shift hole in 
bottom: (ight) -. 32 Sis ae = eee 2(0.32) = 0.64 
— 4.478 
(Average = 0.6397) 

STONE F. (Fig. 21) A B C 
Clamps in upper surface (right) 4.4)... 5 see pen oe 0.282 + 2(0.175) = 0.632 
Clamps im upper:surface (left).-. sc. s Sale Ole ee 0.282 + 2(0.175) = 0.632 
T-dowel in upper surface (centre) <2 wc. uh. oo. ae cee 2(0.323) = 0.646 
Dowela in upper surface (left)icr 2.1.20 acdwa sore ee ee 0.315 + 2(0.165) = 0.645 
Dowels.in undet-eurlace (left) ms... 08k ee ee eee 0.23 + 2(0.207) = 0.644 
Face of stone to axis.of pry hole (1). 7.0.)5..2.ce ee 2(0.32) = 0.64 
Face of stone.to ‘axis of pry hole (2)). =... a au ee 2(0.382) = 0.64 
Face of stone to.axis of pry hole.(3) .. 0s. 2c eee 2(0.32) = 0.64 

— 5.119 
(Average = 0.6399) 

STONE G. (Fig. 24) A B Cc 
Clamps in upper surface (left): 5%... 5.5m a. eee meee 0.325 + 2(0.155) = 0.635 
Dowels in upper surface (right) ss). | ee ee ee 0.33 + 2(0.159) = 0.648 
Dowels in. under surface (right) =) |...) eee ee eee 0.31 + 2(0.165) = 0.64 
Face-of stone to:axis of pry Hole’... 1154 oe 2(0.82) = 0.64 

— 2.563 


(Average = 0.6407) 


DESCRIPTION 30 


On the front of E (Fig. 20) at the left end is a broad shallow rabbet, of good Greek work- poor 
manship, with an inclination to the left, as it rises, amounting to 0.003 m. in its height, 
while on the face of the stone, 0.037 m. to the right of the rabbet, is a distinct line of weather- 
ing with slight traces of bronze oxidization. The same sort of rabbet is found about the doors 
of the Parthenon, the Propylaea, 
and other Greek buildings, where 
the opening was lined with a wooden 
or metal casing. That E was from 
the right side of such an opening is 
confirmed by the absence at its left 
end of anathyrosis and of cuttings 
for clamps to secure an adjacent 
block, and by the presence of a 
dowel in the upper surface at this 


i 7076 - => 


point, showing that here the vertical 
joint was continued on the block 
above. Assuming for the moment —-what will be proved later—that E is from the entrance 
in the east wall, it must obviously be so placed with reference to the axis of the building 
that the width of the opening will be appropriate to a door. Such a position is found, if E 
is separated from a long block of the 


Figure 20. EAST WALL: STONE E: ISOMETRIC 


north anta by a stone of normal ie Pah atearg 
length (1.30 m.; see Fig. 19), as then | 
the opening is 2.60m. wide. If, how- | 
ever, E were assigned to the course 
above, and placed one-half a block 


we 
rs 
¢ 


(0.65 m.) nearer the axis of the 
building, the opening would be di- 
minished by the length of an entire 
block, and would be much too small RSs. IN 
(only 1.30 m.), while if the stone 
were placed half a block farther 
from the axis, the increased width (3.90 m.) would be too great. That it is correctly assigned 
to the eleventh course will be clear when the positions of F and G have been fixed. 

The former, F (Figs. 19, 21), is only 0.48 m. high, nearly 0.01 m. lower than the average winpows 
stone of the southeast anta. In the centre of its upper surface is a cutting for a T-dowel, by 
which in a wall the stones of the antae are regularly secured.! Therefore in all probability 
the right end of F adjoined and was clamped to a block of the north anta having its short 
face to the east, while the block above, with its long face to the east, rested on F and was 


L3O/ 


Ficurr 21. EAST WALL: STONE F: ISOMETRIC 


1 See Ch. II, pp. 194 f. 


36 THE ERECHTHEUM 


fastened by the T-dowel (Figs. 22, 23).! Dowels and pry holes in the upper surface of F 
show that to the left of the long block was a short one (0.53 m.) and then a stone with a 
bearing of only 0.124 m. on F. The left end of F is also inclined to the left, as it rises, by 
0.003 m. in its height. Such an inclination is not found in an ordinary joint, but is associated 
with openings in a wall, and when combined with the irregular jointing just described in the 
course above F, suggests that this stone is from the upper right corner of an opening and 


INCLINED 


430/ 


Figure 22. EAST WALL: RELATION OF STONE F TO NORTH ANTA: ISOMETRIC 


supported the end of the lintel. At the same time, the absence of any sinking for a wooden 
or metal casing shows that this opening differed from that to which E belonged. In fact 
clamp cuttings — one of them of peculiar shape * — at the left end of F indicate that here 
the lining was of stone. 

If, as is highly probable, F adjoined a short block of the anta, it might theoretically be 
assigned to either the second, fourth, sixth, eighth, or tenth course from the top. The 
second, eighth, and tenth courses may be at once dismissed from consideration, for these 
blocks of the anta are preserved and are nearly 0.01 m. higher than F. The block from the 
sixth course is missing, but it will appear later that so low a position for the top of the 
opening is unlikely. There remains the fourth course, and the probability that F belongs 
here becomes almost a certainty when it appears that in the anta this course is of the same 
unusual height (0.48 m.) as F. 

1 The under side of this upper stone, indicated in Figure 22 by dotted lines, is shown in Figure 23. 


2 Figure 21 at left. It lacks the cross-bar at the end, and may be merely unfinished. The rectangular cutting in the 
left upper front corner of F is late and probably connected with its use in some Christian or Turkish building. 


DESCRIPTION 37 


Dowels and a pry hole in the upper surface of G (Fig. 24) at the right show that like E 
its vertical face was continued on the block above, and here too the departure from the 
regular system of jointing suggests the side of an opening. This inference is confirmed by 
the inclination of this edge of G toward the right, as it rises, at the rate of 0.003 m. per course. 
The absence of any sinking on the outer surface indicates that the opening resembled that 
to which F belonged, and the rabbet of good Greek workmanship in the lower half of the 
right end of G naturally suggests the presence of a sill at the bottom of such an opening. 

Obviously G does not come from the same side of the same opening as F, but in view of 
the symmetry which normally appears in the vertical joints of the front wall of a temple, we 


INCLINED | 
NEXIS 


A389 


Za 7 
FicurE 23. EAST WALL: UNDER SIDE OF BLOCK FROM 5 PONE As Vf 


NORTH ANTA, RESTORED: ISOMETRIC 
Figure 24. EAST WALL: STONE G: 


This block is indicated by dotted lines in Figure 22 ISOMETRIC 


may assume that a stone similar to G, but with its sides reversed (Fig. 19, J), once existed on 
the same side of the opening as F. It is also obvious that if the amount by which the top of 
F projects beyond the top of J (0.015 m.)! is divided by the inclination per course (0.003 m.), 
the quotient, five, will be the number of courses separating the tops of the two stones, and 
since J is from the bottom, the total height of the opening, disregarding the sill, will be six 
courses. Such a height (2.95 m.) is clearly more appropriate to a window than to an im- 
portant door in such a temple as the Erechtheum.” It follows that G, or its counterpart J, 
adjoined a long block of the anta, which, if F has been correctly placed in the fourth course, 
can be only in the ninth. If F were assigned to the sixth course, J would fall in the eleventh, 
but this is impossible because of the presence of E, which cannot be placed in a higher course 
without interfering with the window. As the side of the window, determined by F and J, 
practically aligns with a joint in the wall, it is natural, in view of the symmetry displayed 
elsewhere in the building, to suppose that the other side did the same, and that the axis of 


1 Length of F at top (1.304 m.) less one-half a wall block (0.65 m.) ..........-+.+-+.++- = 0.654 m. 
Rare rete WG LOD. hs cies 9 iiss scene olen Qe Taw LarmenEa es MRiR aes we ele eas = 0.639 m. 
Prorection of F beyond f 665 65.1 sae ys fee sn ORs CVn oe ad ean SO Sule Ca ete = 0.015 m. 


2 The west and south doors are respectively 2.70 m. and 2.213 m. high, but both are of secondary importance. 
The height of the North Door is 4.882 m. 


WINDOW 
LININGS 


38 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the window coincided with that of the stone below. The width of the window could not 
have been greater than an ordinary wall unit (1.30 m.), for the known side of the window 
is separated by only one unit and a half from the side of the door fixed by E, while the 
alternative, a width of one-half a unit (0.65 m.) is too small to be seriously considered. 

The results thus far obtained (Fig. 19) show that the east wall was pierced by three 
openings — a central door of known width but of unknown height, and two windows of 
known width (exclusive of the framing) and height, symmetrically placed on either side of 
the door, and much closer to it than to the antae. 

These results are confirmed and further reconstruction made possible by a study of 
certain well-known fragments found on the Acropolis and obviously once part of the lining 
about an opening in a wall. Since the time of Inwood it has been generally assumed that 
these fragments came from the Erechtheum, to which indeed the rich decoration and deli- 
cate carving, as well as the character and dimensions of the cuttings for clamps and dowels, 
naturally assign them. 

As to the opening, however, to which these fragments belonged, there has been no such 
general agreement. Inwood referred them tentatively to the east door, and in this was fol- 
lowed by the catalogue of the British Museum. Schultz made a like proposal with rather 
more confidence. Middleton preferred to assign them to the small door in the west wall and 
his notebooks are full of data to support this view. Boétticher, who found several fragments 
in the interior of the Erechtheum, seems to have been alone in regarding them as part of a 
moulding belonging to a podium for columns inside the temple.1 

Careful search on and about the Acropolis has considerably increased the number of 
these fragments. There are now twenty-one pieces in all; one is in the British Museum,’ 
and until 1905 two others were embedded in the foundations for the division between nave 
and aisles in the Christian church constructed within the Erechtheum — an interesting fact, 
as it shows that the pieces had been removed from their original place at the time when the 
church was built. Six of these fragments are recognizable as belonging to lintels, while the 
other fifteen are from jambs. 

The direction of the guilloche is a criterion for the further division of the fragments into 
two groups. One group is formed of a fragment of lintel (Figs. 25, 28) from the left upper 
corner of an opening, and twelve fragments of jamb, including a bottom piece and two top 
pieces. With the bottom piece — easily recognized as such by the way in which the pressure 
is relieved from the delicate mouldings (PLatr XVIII, 1; Fig. 27) — can be combined 
three other fragments of jamb, including that in the British Museum, with a total length 


1 Inwood, ed. min., p. 15, pl. XX (Von Quast, p. 175, pl. XV). Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 238, No. 418. Schultz, 
J. H.S., XI, 1891, pp. 4ff., fig. 3. Middleton, Athenian Buildings, p. 13, XXII; pl. XVII. Bétticher, Unter- 
suchungen, p. 194: “Ausser zweien Kapitellen der innern Sdéulen fanden sich nach und nach gegen 14 lauf. Fuss von 
der Spira des Podiums auf welchen dieselben ehemals standen.” « 

? Sir Cecil Smith, in 1905 Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, kindly sent on request a cast of this fragment, 
which proved to have adjoined the longest piece in Athens. The cast is now in the museum on the Acropolis. 


DESCRIPTION 39 


of 2.02 m. With one of the top pieces of this group, marked as such by the clamp cutting 
(PLate XVIII, 1; Fig. 27),! can similarly be combined five other fragments of jamb, with 
a total length of 2.04m. The other group, in which the direction of the guilloche is re- 
versed, is smaller, consisting of a corner of the lintel, also from the left side of an opening 
(Fig. 26), and three fragments of jamb, no one of which can be united to either of the others. 
There are four small fragments of lintel which cannot be referred specifically to one of these 
two groups, as the guilloche is not preserved. They do, however, assist in the restoration 


Figur: 25, EAST WALL: LEFT END OF LINTEL FROM SOUTH WINDOW 


of a vertical section through the lintel. As each group contains a fragment from the left- 
hand corner of a lintel, both cannot come from a single door or window ? but must be 
divided between at least two similar openings. 

In all the fragments from the jambs which have the outer edge preserved, there is a 
rabbet (PLate XVIII, 1; Fig. 27), so that the outer moulding may hide the vertical joint 
at the side of the jamb. As the orthostates project 0.01_m. beyond the face of the wall 
above (PLATE XVI), it follows that if the lower part of the jamb had overlapped this course, 
its rabbet must have had a different horizontal section from the part higher up. This sec- 
tion, however, is the same in the fragments from the bottom and from the top of the jamb. 
Therefore these fragments cannot have come from an opening for a door, which must have 
passed through the orthostates, though they may have belonged to windows entirely above 
this course. 

It remains to determine from a study of these fragments the dimensions of the openings 
which they lined, and to compare these dimensions with those already deduced for the 
windows in the east wall. 


1 It may be regarded as certain that, as in the North Door, the jambs were each formed of a single block; conse- 
quently a clamp can be only at the top. 

2 The possibility that one group is from the inside and the other from the outside of the same opening is excluded, 
because gome of the fragments must then have come back to back, and the aggregate thickness would be greater than 
is permitted by the wall; moreover, the mouldings show no trace of damage by fire. It was also the usual Greek practice 
to enrich the outside of an opening, while leaving the inside with little or no adornment. 


40 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The fragments from both the top and the bottom of the jamb (PLatE XVIII, 1; Fig. 27), 
when tested by the steel square, show that the lining to which they belonged, as it rose, was 
inclined toward the axis of the opening at the rate of 0.003 m. per wall course, thus agreeing 
with the inclination of the east windows as measured on the stones F and G. 

The original width of the larger fragment from the lintel, which is so badly damaged 
that no direct measurement is possible, can be determined by the method used in the case 


Figure 26. EAST WALL: LEFT UPPER CORNER OF NORTH LINTEL 


of the stones E, F, and G,! as approximately 0.64 m., only a millimetre greater than the 


measured thickness of the east wall. Its width, therefore, is no obstacle to assigning this 
stone to a window in the east wall. 


A B C 
+ Dowels in upper surface. \.046. 4. ec. ok ee 0.276 + 2(0.182) = 0.64 
Pry oles 226 53 Scented 2(0.32) = 0.64 
1.28 

Approximate width 


DESCRIPTION 41 


The bottom surface of both lintels is missing, but the following considerations indicate 
that their original height was that of a normal course in the wall. <A fragment from the 
top of a jamb, which is proved by a clamp in its upper surface to have aligned with a joint 
in the wall, shows that a tongue of the Lesbian cyma fell on the joint between jamb and 
lintel. From the spacing of this ornament on the lintel it appears that a tongue will fall at 
this point, if the lintel is one course (0.491 m.) in height, but not if it is two courses (Fig. 27). 


N 
9 
YY 
A A 
“ses 4,095 x > OFO/% | 
(UU mnie: 
OOO A . 
° of al Ys 
5 & RAGS 9 
\ Sim ® 
o SB DON < ,4eas ~ © 
ae N 
Xan @ 
v 


PPOs BOTTOM 


Figures 27. EAST WALL: ABOVE: ELEVATION OF LEFT HALF OF LINTEL OF SOUTH 
WINDOW, WITH INDICATION OF AXES OF ORNAMENT. BELOW: PLANS 
OF TOP AND BOTTOM OF JAMB OF WINDOW 


Moreover the largest fragment of lintel (Figs. 25, 28) has at the left a cutting where a 
console was attached by two bronze plugs.! This console was 0.12 m. wide, one-half the 
width of the console at the North Door, where the lintel was two courses high, and thus 
harmonized with the lower lintel indicated by the ornament. 

The dowels and pry holes on the upper surface of this same fragment show that the stone 
which they held overlapped the lintel about 0.12 m. (Figs. 27, 28). The bearing of the lintel 
on the stone below was presumably the same, since the alternate joints in the wall corre- 


1 One of these consoles is mentioned in the inscription; see Ch. IV, Inscription I, col. 1, 1. 93, and Commentary, 
p. 317. 


42 THE ERECHTHEUM 


spond (Fig. 19). This recalls the bearing of 0.124 m. assigned to the lintel on stone F, and 
also permits the lintel to be combined with the regular blocks of the wall (Fig. 29). 

The axis of the lintel may be determined from three of its bands of ornament — the 
egg-and-dart, the leaf-and-tongue, and the bead-and-reel — for, as the elements of these 
ornaments are contained an exact number of times in each band, all the ornamentation 
must have been symmetrical about the axis of the lintel. Consequently when, on laying off 
the several axial distances, it appears that all three coincide at a distance of 0.655 m. from 


491 


Fe 


. HM 44 
v ak Y, rae i ~ ll 
x AO, ee WW ues Sa 
By ay tei s . oe Aes 
Mf: xd AS we Pidag < a I \\' 
Pr . ay ¢ as . 5 


yD a > ar bm DD PY DAD DD SD AD A A AD YD YD ©, 


Figure 28. EAST WALL: LEFT END OF LINTEL FROM SOUTH WINDOW: ISOMETRIC 


the sinking for the console and only here (Fig. 27), it is reasonable to conclude that this 
point marks the axis of the lintel and also of the opening below. The axis thus determined 
for the lintel and its window coincides exactly with the axis already indicated for the win- 
dows of the east wall, due allowance being made for the inclination of the linings and for 
their overlap on the blocks of the wall. 

The total height of the openings in the east wall, from the top of the sill to the under- 
side of the lintel, is 2.709 m. according to the evidence of stones F and G. On the longest 
fragment preserved twenty-one leaves have a length of 0.89 m. A tongue fell on the joint 
with the lintel, and the fragment from the bottom shows that another tongue was 0.08 m. 
above the base, where the jamb rested on the sill. The space between these two tongues 
(2.709 m.—0.08 m.) is 2.629 m., and this is exactly filled by sixty-two leaves. 

This would seem to complete the proof that the fragments of lining belonged to two 
windows of the height, width, and inclination of those deduced for the east wall from the 
data furnished by stones E, F, and G; that they corresponded in thickness with the east 
wall; and that they fitted such stones of this wall as are preserved. The complete agree- 


To 
S } ES es ee ee aes ed Ip 
| 


\ 
‘ 
\ 
\ 
: 


| : 
\ 


iz 


vase N 
Po ean ee N  § 


\ 


\ a 


SS Sst Se Se ee ‘N 4 2 
SY) Se —— N owe 
r eine 
. = eee 
\ 


N 5 
TK qe 
N a a 
\ = 
N q & 
Vie: 
\ Z 


\ 
| 
N 


Ay 
Kf eZ wa 


aos THE ERECHTHEUM 


ment in the results derived from such various sources fully justifies the reconstruction pre- 
sented in PLate XVII. The similarity in the design of these windows and that of the large 
door in the North Portico is worthy of remark. Each has a broad framing which runs up 
one side, across the top, and down the other side. In each the consoles are recessed from the 
framing and dowelled to the wall — not a part of it — and in each the consoles apparently 
support the uppermost set of architectural mouldings. It is easy to believe that the door 
and the windows were designed by the same man. . 

The width of the large door in the east wall renders it almost certain that its lintel, like 
those of the other doors in the building, was two courses high. It can hardly have inter- 
rupted the band of ornament carved on the epicranitis, nor is it likely that the top of the 
door was lower than that of the windows; but, assuming that the tops of the three openings 
were at the same level, it appears that a lintel of the given height exactly fills the space 
remaining below the epicranitis, and that the opening for the door, when due allowance is 
made for the necessary lining, is twice as high as it is wide (PLATE XVII, top) —a ratio 
found also in the great North Door and much used by Greek architects. The mouldings of 
the jambs were probably continued across the lintel and the whole frame given a crowning 
member, which was presumably at least as high as the mouldings on the lintels of the win- 
dows. In view of the proximity of the latter, however, the use of some other material than 
marble seems required for the framing of the door, if it were to be an effective part of the 
decoration. Stone jambs and stone consoles, such as appear in the North Portico, would 
here have seemed to crowd the similar framing of the windows. Hence a lining of bronze, or 
of wood sheathed with bronze, already suggested by the traces on stone E, is also indicated 
by considerations of architectural propriety. A similar difference in treatment between a 
door and flanking windows is found in the fagade of the northwest wing of the Propylaea.! 

If the under surfaces of the three lintels were on the same line, the course to which they 
belonged was the first above the sill of the door to run across the wall without a break, and 
therefore the first in which the stones at the north and south ends of the wall must align 
exactly with one another. If in the independent construction of these two ends the wall 
on the north had reached a slightly greater height than that on the south,? it would be 
necessary to cut down this excess in the course on which the lintels rested, and it is now 
easy to see why stones D and F were so much below the average height. 

The cuttings at the left in the upper surface of the largest fragment from a lintel (Fig. 28) 
show that at this end it was secured to an adjoining block by a k= clamp, and to an over- 
lapping one in the course above by two dowels (p. 41). Such a combination of fastenings 
implies that the lintel was here in contact with the regular courses of the wall and not with 
a central lintel two courses high, or, in other words, that it belonged to the southern window. 


1 Bohn, Propylaeen, pl. IX. 

? Similar irregularities in the height of courses on opposite sides of an opening are found in the doorway leading 
from the Porch of the Maidens into the temple (PLare XII) and in the entrance to the Pandroseum from the North 
Portico (PLarE VII); see also Ch. II, pp. 222 f. 


DESCRIPTION 45 


Hence the first group of fragments (p. 38) is from this window, while the smaller group must 
be assigned to the other (Fig. 29).1 

The under sides of the lintels and the reveals of the vertical linings show a finish very 
inferior to the best Greek work, and this indicates that the original surface has been cut 
away. The position of the joint between the jamb and the lintel (Fig. 27) points to the 
same conclusion, as it would naturally have been in line with the lower edge of the lintel, 
which is now cut back from it. These conditions are intelligible, if the surface had been 
marred by flames bursting through the windows and calcining the marble with which they 
came in contact, since the damage could be easily and economically repaired by cutting 
away the injured portions and lining the reveals with marble slabs or with wood sheathed 
in bronze. No portions of the stone sills themselves have been found. As four jambs rested 
on these sills, it may be possible to recover the complete profile of the jambs, if the sills can 
be identified. Their height was 0.221 m. (Fig. 27). 

The relation of the three openings in the east wall to the whole facade and to each other 
is shown in Piatres XIII and XVII. It is clear that the windows could not well be placed 
nearer the door, while at a greater distance from it they would be deprived of light and 
partially hidden by the columns immediately in front of them. In spite of this asymmetry 
with reference to the intercolumniation the general effect would not be disagreeable, inas- 
much as the columns and the wall, being in different planes, would always be seen in per- 
spective.? Thus tall, narrow windows, harmonizing with the vertical note set by the columns 
of the portico, and placed near the door, seem to afford the best possible solution of the 
problem here presented.’ 

None of the epicranitis from the east wall has been identified,’ but there are three frag- 
ments of the epistyle which can be easily recognized by the dressing on the upper surface 
for the beams and interbeams of the ceiling of the East Portico and by the cuttings for the 
dowels which held these stones. Two of these fragments form part of the wall separating 
the north aisle of the church from the nave (PLatsEs II, XX XI; Fig. 101); the third now 
(1924) lies near the wall of the Acropolis north of the North Portico. All are about one-half 
the thickness of the east wall, but the dressing on the rear surfaces, so far as it can be seen, is 
rough and apparently not Greek, while the two blocks in the church wall show traces of the 
Roman r= clamps by which they were held to a backing. Only about 0.40 m. of the upper 
surface of the third block is preserved; it contains no Roman cuttings. It is probable, then, 


1 In this figure the position given to the fragments of jamb which are not from the top or bottom merely shows 
the window to which they belong, as the exact location cannot be determined in every case. 

2 See also the remarks of Elderkin, Problems in Periclean Buildings, p. 5, and fig. 7. 

3 Bétticher assumed the presence of windows in the east wall (Tektonik der Hellenen, Atlas, pl. XLI) and was 
followed in this conjecture, though with considerable hesitation, by Julius (Hrechtheion, p. 22; cf. Baumeister, Denk- 
miler, s. v. ‘Erechtheion’). 

4 In Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409, the three blocks of epicranitis in the Museum are tentatively assigned 
to the east wall on account of their excellent preservation. As all the known fragments of this wall have been used in 
later buildings and much damaged, this argument seems of doubtful validity, and it is more probable that these are 
three of the blocks seen on the south wall by Dalton (Puare L, 1) and other travellers in the eighteenth century. 


EPISTYLE 


46 THE ERECHTHEUM 


that here, as on the side walls, the inner face of the epistyle had been damaged by fire and 
was replaced during the Roman repairs. One of the fragments is clearly proved to belong at 
the north end of the wall by the characteristic mitring of its two upper fasciae and the 
moulding where they intersected the corresponding parts of the epistyle on the north side 
of the portico. The longer of the other two fragments has preserved its north end and 
the shorter its south, so that the position of each (Fig. 11; indicated by diagonals in Figure 
19) can be determined experimentally. The unbroken end of each piece was tested suc- 
cessively on the axis of each block of the epicranitis below, and an examination made to see 
whether the traces of the beams on the fragment coincided with the actual position of the 
beams as known from the epistyle over the columns (Fig. 11). For the shorter fragment 
there was found to be but one place where this condition was fulfilled. The longer block 
cannot have adjoined the shorter on the south, since the cuttings for | clamps do not 
correspond. The traces of the beams are not so distinct as to enable its position to be fixed 
with perfect certainty. If, however, the total distance was covered, as seems reasonable, 
by two blocks of the normal length (eight Attic feet) in the centre, with a shorter block to 
the south (as is proved by the position of the smaller fragment) and a longer to the north, 
this fragment must be from the northern end of one of the two central blocks. 

The profiles of the epicranitis and of the epistyle in the interior of the building, though 
shown by dotted lines on PLatrt XVI, are not preserved at the east end. The former has 
been restored from the mouldings in the niche at the southwest corner; the latter from the 
fragment preserved on the inner face of a Roman block at the north corner of the West 
Facade (PLATE X). 

V. Tue Norts anp SoutH WALLS 


It has been already stated (p. 34) that the north and south walls are inclined slightly in- 
ward. This inclination may be easily and exactly measured at the eastern antae. Since the 
axis of the anta is vertical (p. 30), half the difference between the width of the anta above the 
orthostate and its width below the mouldings of the capital is the inclination of one of its 
sides in the given distance, i. e., in ten courses; moreover, the projection of the side of 
the anta from the outer face of the adjacent wall is greater at the top than at the bot- 
tom of these courses. Therefore the difference between these projections added to the 
inclination of the side of the anta will yield the inclination of the wall. By this method the 
inclination of the south wall is found to be 0.0115 m. in ten courses (PLATE XVIII),! and 


1 “Width of anta above orthostate... 2.1... acute see eee = 0.692 m. 
Width of anta. below capital 4... 2.15 240 ose eee = 0.681 m. 
Difference «).,4.s:6.c% aac ats vial cae al ng eee = 0.011 m 
Inchnation.of south face of antags... +... 2. 45. .scis ene ee = 0.0055 m 
Projection of anta from wall below capital.............-0...+.e++eeeeee = 0.025 m. 
Projection of anta from wall above orthostate. ...............e+eeeeeee: = 0.019 m. 
Difference . . 5 sae» asitie teu arate cll « Rane ee ee = 0.006 m. 
Inclination of south, wall in ten courses. . U2. s/o Jse. oss eee = 0.0115 m. 


The figures are given on Puate XVIII. 


FROM NORTHEAST (1922) 


INSIDE, 


SOUTH WALL: EAST END, 


Figure 30 


[47] 


ORTHO- 
STATES 


PLINTHS 


48 THE ERECHTHEUM 


that of the north wall, as far as the North Portico, to be practically the same (0.0105 ns) 
In the North Portico, as measured at the southwest pier, the inclination is 0.02 m. in ten 
courses. 

The orthostates in these walls were generally only one-half the thickness of the wall. In 
the south wall this is obviously true of those which are visible on the outside, as their back- 
ing has wholly disappeared (PLATE XII; Figs. 30, 100),' and it is also proved for those on 
the inside in the lower part of the western half of the wall by the presence in their upper 
surface of clamps which secure them to concealed blocks behind.? Similar clamps in the 
orthostates of the north wall, and differences in the grain of the marble on corresponding 
interior and exterior faces show conclusively that here too the same conditions prevail. 
The orthostates belonging to the eastern antae and those adjacent to the north and south 
doors are, however, of the full thickness of the wall. 

The ordinary blocks (r\ivOor) extend completely through the walls, except in the fol- 
lowing cases. The steps, base moulding, and orthostates on the exterior of the south wall 
were backed on the interior by four courses of ordinary height (courses 12-15, PLatre XII; 
Fig. 31), in order that the system of jointing begun in the lower part of the wall might re- 
main undisturbed. The two courses behind the orthostates (12, 18) were of half the usual 
thickness, while courses 14 and 15 were L-shaped, being more than half the thickness of 
the wall behind the upper and lower steps, respectively, but less than half behind the base 
moulding and the middle step (Fig. 31). Courses 12 and 13 no longer exist, and their place 
is largely filled by a brick lining inserted by Pittakis about 1838 (Fig. 30). It is certain, 
however, that the backing was originally composed of two separate courses and not of in- 
terior orthostates; for, when in 1914 portions of the bricks were removed, the orthostate of 
the anta was found to have at its west end anathyrosis and a cutting for a horizontal 
dowel or clamp,’ 0.49-0.41 m. from its bottom, where a block of about half its height was 
fastened, while 4.75 m. west of the east face of the east anta were a dowel and pry holes in 
course 14, and 0.65 m. farther west a cutting for a clamp in the north face of the orthostate, 
all properly placed to secure two other blocks in course 13 (PLATE XII). In both courses 16 
and 17 the easternmost marble block is less than the usual thickness of the wall. 

Behind the roof of the Porch of the Maidens was a single course one-half the thickness 
of the wall, except in the niche where it was reduced to thin slabs (p. 114; Puarz XXVIII). 
Two thin slabs, each two courses high, were also employed on the inside as a facing for the 
lintel over the south door (PLaTe XII; Fig. 99). The smaller slab has remained in place; 
the larger has disappeared. 


‘ This backing had disappeared before 1818. J. Woods, Letters of an Architect, II, p. 255: “The sort of dado 
course above the base is, or was, two thicknesses set on edge. The inner slabs have been taken away, so that it is 
wonderful the wall stands.” 

2 The east orthostate of the south wall is 0.372 m. thick at its east end. The others are presumably similar. 

* The clamp used seems to have been of a special shape, having a hook at the end inserted in the orthostates, 
instead of the usual crossbar (Fig. 31). 


Figure 31. SOUTH WALL, COURSES 11-15: ISOMETRIC. SECTION THROUGH EAST ORTHOSTATE AND STEPS. 
PLAN OF SAME. FORM OF CLAMP USED TO ATTACH LOWER COURSE OF BACKING TO ORTHOSTATES 


[ 49 ] 


BEPICRA- 
NITIS 


50 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In the north wall two thin courses of ordinary height masked the ceiling of the North 
Portico (p. 87). A small part of this sheathing is still in place behind the southeast corner 
of the portico (PLaTs XI; Figs. 32, 55), and further evidence of its existence is preserved 
on a block near the west end now concealed by a new stone. 

Contrary to the usual Greek custom the blocks which are two courses in height have 
not been dressed with a smooth horizontal band across the centre of the inner surface to 
correspond with the anathyrosis on the backs of the abutting stones. 

Except where it was hidden by the roof of the North Portico, the epicranitis was deco- 
rated on the outside with carved mouldings and an ornamental band of palmettes and 


Figur: 32. NORTH WALL: UPPER COURSES BEHIND NORTH PORTICO, FROM SOUTH 


flowers; on the inside the moulding at the top seems to have been painted. Originally there 
were twenty-eight of these carved blocks, each four Attic feet long, on the east, north, and 
south walls. Of these three are preserved in the British Museum, and one is in the Glypto- 
thek at Munich,! while in Athens ten are complete or nearly so, and three more have been 
pieced together from scattered fragments. Hence eleven blocks are altogether missing or 
represented only by small pieces. In the rebuilding of the south wall in 1907-08 the blocks 
of this course were replaced without reference to their original positions, which indeed could 


1 Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409; they are described under the same number as the northeast anta: see also 
above, p. 45, note 4. Munich, Beschreibung der Glyptothek,? No. 242. This block came from the collection of Haller 
von Hallerstein, who refers to it as ‘‘le beau fragment du Temple d’Erechtée” in a letter to Fauvel of October 10, 
1815 (Bibl. Nat., MSS, Fonds fr., 22875, fol. 3). Haller reported the purchase of this block to the Crown-Prince 
Ludwig of Bavaria on June 12, 1812 (letter of March 12, 1813, in Z. bild. Kunst, XII, 1877, p. 193). According to 
Thiersch (Erechtheum, II, p. 215) it was found originally in a Turkish garden. 


DESCRIPTION 51 


not be definitely ascertained except at the west end, where a fragment of the corner block, 
including the capital of the southwest anta, was in situ (Fig. 109), so that the other pieces of 
this block could be fitted together and the whole restored with certainty (Fig. 33). On the 
north wall, only the seven blocks behind the North Portico (Fig. 34) were in place in 1789, 
and of these the four at the west end fell when the portico was partially destroyed in 1827 
(p. 558). They have since been replaced in their original positions, the second from the west 
by Pittakis in 1838,? the other three during the restoration of the North Portico in 1903- 
1904. The corner block is Greek, for it contains a pry hole and cutting for a Greek dowel, 
but Roman r= clamps held it to the Roman capital of the northwest anta and to the ad- 
joining block on the north wall, and a Roman dowel secured the north block of the Roman 
west architrave (PLate XX, 7, 8). The second and third blocks are Roman, as is clear 


Figure 33. SOUTH WALL: EPICRANITIS AT WEST END (1922) 


from the absence of cuttings for Greek dowels and clamps and from the presence of Roman 
lewis holes and cuttings for =— clamps. Since the central beam of the ceiling in the portico 
and the interbeam to the west of it are Roman (p. 87), it is natural that the blocks above 
should also be Roman. The fourth block is shown to be Greek by two pry holes and a cut- 
ting for a Greek dowel, but its unusual length (only 0.512 m.) suggests that it was cut away 
on the west to facilitate the repairs on the course below. The next three blocks are Greek 
and have apparently always remained in their present position (Fig. 55).2 The easternmost 


1 This is clear from Fauvel’s elevation of the inside of the north wall, Bibl. Nat., Estampes, G b. 15a, fol. 138. See 
Ch. V, pp. 546 f. 

2 Report Gr. Comm. § 17; pl. IV. 

3 See Tétaz, R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158, tv (from drawing in his Mémoire explicatif); Report Gr. Comm., pl. IV. 
The position of the eastern block is assured by the bit of uncarved moulding on its north face (PLATE V). Farther 
east the epicranitis would have had the usual carved mouldings and the anthemion; farther west the north face would 
have been plain, since it would have been hidden by the roof of the portico. In the top of course 2 near the eastern end 
of this block and running under its south side are two cuttings which resemble Roman pour channels. If this is really 
their nature, they show that this block of the epicranitis was reset during the Roman repairs. Correspondence in the 
cuttings for a 4 clamp in the west end of this block and in the east end of the block adjoining proves that the latter 
also isin its old place. The third block, strangely enough, is not clamped to either of its neighbors, but as it is dowelled 
at its east end to the interbeam below (PLATE XI), there is no reason to doubt that it too has remained in situ. 


EPISTYLE 


52 THE ERECHTHEUM 


block of all (PLatEes V, XI; not shown in Fig. 34) is the back 
of one of the blocks in the British Museum.! If, as seems prob- 
able, the blocks chosen for Lord Elgin were those which appear 
on the south wall in the early drawings (PLatss L, 1, LI, 2), 
the original position of this block was probably a little east of 
the centre of that wall.2 According to the Chandler inscription 
the stones of this course were three Attic feet in width,’ but the 
blocks in Athens‘ are as a rule only about half the thickness of 
the wall or a little more. The present rear surface, moreover, 
shows unmistakable Roman dressing, and on the tops are cut- 
tings for == clamps which secured the new backing (Figs. 34, 
35). The absence of such clamps from the ends indicates that 
when, probably on account of a great fire, it became necessary 
to replace the original inner face, the repairs were made without 
removing the stones from the wall.° As similar repairs were 
apparently necessary on the course above, the operation would 
not have been very difficult. 

The epistylia from the north and south walls have for the 
most part disappeared. One block (3.867 m. long by 0.77 m. 
wide, upper moulding included) is still in place at the southeast 
corner (Fig. 11); another (2.608 m. long by 0.387 m. wide), un- 
broken, stands at the east end in the apse of the church (Fig. 4); 
a third (2.575 m. long by about 0.275 m. wide), broken at both 
ends, is in the British Museum (Sculpture, I, p. 237, No. 414); 
and three fragments of a fourth (about 1.55 m. long by 0.405 m. 
wide) lie west of the Erechtheum. This course, like the epicra- 
nitis, has been reduced from its original width by removing the 
inner face. This is clearly proved by the stone in situ, which at 


1 On this cutting down of the epicranitis (cornice), see Ch. V, p. 553, note 3. 

2 In 1908 this block was placed on the south wall next to the west corner, but 
was later transferred to its present position and its place above the Porch of the 
Maidens given to the remarkably well preserved block which had previously been 
exhibited in the Acropolis Museum (PLate XX XVII, 1). 

3 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 17. 

4 The block in Munich is set into the wall, so that its thickness cannot be 
measured, but unless it is very deeply embedded, it cannot have preserved its 
original back. The blocks in the British Museum have certainly been cut down, 
but this may have been done to render them more portable. The backs cannot 
be examined. 

5 That this renewal of the epicranitis was connected with the other Roman 
repairs is shown by the condition of the blocks at the west end of the north wall 
(Fig. 34). The two Roman blocks were the full thickness of the wall, but of the 
four Greek blocks the two at the east have had the entire back replaced, while 
the other two have been given new mouldings. 


JOGE POLE 


i, 


NZOS- 


429 


4351S. 


X Q512 xX 


ee ee 


426 


0705 x 


< 


4 METRE 


Ficure 34. NORTH WALL: PLAN OF TOP OF EPICRANITIS BEHIND NORTH PORTICO 


DESCRIPTION D3 


its west end within the building has been cut down to a thickness of only 0.50 m. to receive 
a new lining, and by the two blocks now on the ground, since in the top of each are remains 
of ar=— clamp to secure the new backing, while the dressing on the back of the larger block 
is certainly Roman.? 

In the upper fascia of each of the two latter stones are late dowel cuttings with pour 
channels, exactly resembling those in the top of the southern longitudinal wall of the church 
and in the fragment of an epistyle at the 
west end of the corresponding northern 
wall (Puates IT, XX XI). There can be 
no doubt that in the Christian church 
these blocks also formed part of the upper 
course of this wall—a striking commen- 
tary on the condition of the building at 
the time of its transformation. 

The dowel cutting at the west, or left, 
end of the stone still in situ, and the evi- 
dence furnished by the epicranitis at the 
southwest corner (Fig. 110) prove that 


along the south wall the epistyle was laid Figure 35. BLOCK OF EPICRANITIS WITH ROMAN 
DRESSING ON BACK AND CUTTINGS FOR 


from east to west. The broken block DETAR Oe GS ps aN 


west of the Erechtheum was certainly 
not dowelled at the left end, and this suggests that it belonged to the north wall, and 
that on this wall a part at least of this course was laid in the same direction as on the south. 
The well-preserved block now lying in the apse of the church has in its upper surface a 
dowel cutting and the remains of a pry hole, which prove that the block of the frieze which 
ested on this stone was not less than 2.10 m. long. According to the inscriptions 2 the blocks 
of the frieze on the north wall were eight feet (2.62 m.) and those on the south generally 
six feet (1.98 m.) in length. Probably, therefore, this architrave is from the north wall. It 
has, however, a dowel cutting in the left end, so that the part of the course to which it be- 
longed was laid from west to east. That this part was at the eastern end of the wall is shown 
by the top of the capital of the northeast corner column, now in the British Museum. West 
of the north and south axis of the capital are two dowels, running east and west, which obvi- 
ously secured the eastern end of the corner epistyle on the north wall (Fig. 134). This 
block was, therefore, laid from the west. The stone in the British Museum has been much 
cut away at the back and is badly broken at both ends, so that no trace of dowels or clamps 


1 The back of the broken block is too badly damaged to warrant any inference as to the character of the dressing. 
The block in the British Museum has been cut down (Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., I, p. 90), but this was probably done to facil- 


itate its transportation to England. 
2 See Ch. IV, Inscription VIII 4, ll. 4, 29, and Commentary, p. 347. It is, however, quite possible, that three of 
the frieze blocks on the south wall were also eight feet long (p. 345). 


FRIEZE 


CORNICE 


54 THE ERECHTHEUM 


remains. It has been assigned to the south wall,! but exact data to justify this assignment 
are lacking, and the following considerations indicate that it was the eastern block on the 
north wall. The drawings of Pars (1766) and Gell (ca. 1801) show the northeast corner of 
the main building in much the same condition as was the southeast before the recent resto- 
ration (PLATE LI, 2; Figs. 219, 222). Lord Elgin’s agents removed from the northeast corner 
the column, the capital of the anta, and the architrave block at the north end of the east 
front. It is, therefore, natural to suppose that the other architrave block taken by them 
would be the eastern one on the north side, which must have been lowered at this time. 
This conclusion is strengthened when we find that these two corner blocks and the south 
block at the west end, which Dodwell tells us was removed by the Turks during his stay 
in Athens,’ are the only ones which appear in the early drawings, but are missing later. 
It may be added that in the drawing by Pars the architrave on the north side is broken at 
both ends, like the block in the British Museum. ji 

With the exception of the two blocks now in place at the southeast corner, the frieze 
from both north and south walls has wholly disappeared. Dowels in the top of the archi- 
trave on the south wall prove that at the east end the frieze was laid from east to west. A 
pry hole and dowel in the top of the architrave block in the apse, and a similar pry hole and 
dowel in the top of the fragments west of the Erechtheum prove that on the north wall the ~ 
frieze was laid in the opposite direction. 

Many fragments of the cornice from the sides of the building are preserved and can be 
identified by their cross-section, which differs from that used under the pediments (PLATES 
XVI, XVIII). Only one piece shows Greek workmanship; the rest date from the Roman 
repairs and sometimes bear masons’ marks.* One was found in the foundation of the north- 
ern interior wall of the church, thus confirming the evidence of the epistyle as to the dilapi- 
dation of the building before its alteration. The largest fragment has a length of 0.61 m. 
Four Attic feet (1.303 m.) is the length required by the dowels in the east part of the south 
frieze and also given in the inscriptions.! 


VI. Tor West FacapEe 


The West Fagade of the Erechtheum, in view of its peculiar construction and the altera- 
tions it has undergone, may be most conveniently treated in three sections: 

1. The lower wall. 

2. The fagade between this wall and the epistyle, (a) as originally built, and (B) as later 
reconstructed. | 

3. The entablature. 


1 Wilkins, Prolus. Archit., p. 29. Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 237, No. 414. 

2 Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 352. 

3 For these marks, see Ch. II, p. 186 and Fig. 114. 

* Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 25, and Commentary, pp. 316, 356 ff. The data furnished by these fragments 
are employed in the reconstruction on Puate XVIII. 


Erechtheum 


° 


Ip se ‘ gueumMawos 
ile y 
UdNjoLt ddsid Sys, 


aAOMe yxXau Osye 


=r a eee 


fe | 


aS 
jot at ¢ of west door 
4 45 x #5 x ,30 & 2670 ~*~ 500 ak 
06 
Figure 36. PLAN OF WEST END OF ERECHTHEUM NORTH OF WEST DOOR 


The numerals in circles denote the steps and courses below the orthostates of the west wall 


si‘! 


BASE 


ORTHO- 
STATES 


56 THE ERECHTHEUM 


1. THE LOWER WALL 


The base of the west wall,! below the orthostates, is formed by a course 0.445 m. high 
(about 0.045 m. lower than the ordinary wall blocks) and 1.897 m. broad (Fig. 104),? which, 
according to the evidence of dowel holes in the under side of the blocks, was laid from north 
to south. The northern block (1.975 m.) is much longer than the others and spans the little 
gap between the north and west foundations (p. 14), but is not bonded into the north wall 
(PLATE X). On the inside of the building this course formed a bench across the west end; 
on the outside it was cut into two steps, which extended along the base of the wall from the 
North Portico to the west door (Figs. 36, 37). Anathyrosis on what remains of the west side 
of the second step (PLate IV; Fig. 39), and pry holes on the course below show that 
blocks, now missing, abutted both against the step and also against the sill of the small door 
in the North Portico, and that the level of the step, which is also that of the sill,®° was con- 
tinued as a small platform for some distance toward the south.® That it did not continue as 
far as the door in the west wall is shown by the block in the course below just north of the 
door (Puatss II, IV; Fig. 36). The eastern part of this block, including the clamps, was 
covered by the lower of the two steps already mentioned, but the surface of the western 
part, so far as it is preserved, shows that this portion was left exposed. This stone, how- 
ever, was not part of a pavement, but formed a third step, as is clear from the working of 
the west face, on which are remains of a boss, and from the carefully drafted band along 
the bottom, such as frequently appears on the face of steps which have not yet received 
their final dressing. Anathyrosis on the south end of this block and on the west side of the 
stones farther north in this course shows that this third step extended, as is natural, across 
the west door and also along the south side of the second step or little platform just men- 
tioned. The third step was dowelled to a marble pavement, a slab of which is still in place 
beneath the step north of the west door (PLATE IV; Figs. 37, 38, 1, 2, 71, A, B).’ 

The orthostates in the west wall, unlike those in the north and south (p. 48), are single 
blocks extending the full thickness of the wall. The northern orthostate, like the block 
below, extends to the north wall but is not bonded into it. Since, however, the top of the 
middle step on the west ranges with the top of the sill of the North Door (Fig. 39), and since 
north of the west door the upper step and the orthostates together have the same height as 


1 For the probable position of this wall in the original plan of the Erechtheum see below, pp. 168 f. 

2 Or about 1.957 m. broad, if 0.06 m. be allowed for a moulding inside, only the beginning of which is preserved. 

3 South of the door there were no steps; cf. p. 130. 

4 Except for about 1.47 m. at the north end, this step has been destroyed along its whole projection beyond the 
upper step (Fig. 36), which is, however, in a fair state of preservation. 

5 The south side of the sill has been given the smooth dressing of a visible surface, but it was certainly concealed. 

° The exact point of the return is uncertain, but it was probably at the south edge of the block from the Pandro- 
seum (p. 125; Fig. 71, c), where the stones beneath the two upper steps are now missing (Figs. 36, 71). 

7 Figure 38 is from a photograph taken in March, 1918, when the step, which had settled a little, was secured at its 
original level. 1, lowest step; 2, paving slab; 3, earth containing fifth-century sherds; 4, earth containing only Helladic 
sherds; 5, modern wall. For a discussion of the area west of the Erechtheum see the sections on the Pandroseum and 
Cecropium, pp. 119-137. 


interme Sree s 


st 


FROM SOUTH (MARCH, 1926) 


NORTHWEST CORNER OF ERECHTHEUM, 


Figure 37 


L 57] 


58 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the orthostates of the north wall, the tops of the orthostates in the north and west walls are 
at the same level and the bonding of the two walls begins at this point. A single orthostate 


of unusual length (3.52 m.; the south end is not preserved) extends from the west door to 
the southwest corner (PLATE IV). Its height (0.745 m.) is slightly less than that of the 


orthostates north of the door (0.749 m.). 


PLINTHS The size of the blocks and the system of jointing employed in the west wall above the 


orthostates are shown in Puatss IV and X, and call for no special explanation. It may be 


Figure 38. LOWEST STEP OF WEST WALL AND 
PAVING SLAB OF PANDROSEUM NORTH OF 
WEST DOOR (MARCH 12, 1918) 


noted, however, that in courses 15 and 17 the be- 
ginning of the wall is worked as an elbow on stones 
of the north wall (Fig. 39). As the presence of the 
lintel over the small door from the North Portico 
made this construction undesirable in course 13, 
a single long block, abutting on the lintel, here 
filled the space occupied by a block and a half in 
the courses below (PLATE IV; Fig. 39). 

At the south end of the wall the three upper 
courses (18-15) are occupied by one large block, 
4.43 m. long, which sustains the entire superstruc- 
ture at this angle of the temple. The four courses 
below (16-19) extended to the south wall! on the 
interior of the temple, where they were visible 
(PLATE X), but on the exterior were cut back 
obliquely (PLATE II, B; Figs. 78, 79). Below them, 
as has been said (p. 14), the foundations in the 
corner are lacking. Moreover, south of the door 
in the west wall the outer face of the blocks below 
course 14 is rough or has only received its first 
smoothing, which was given before the stones were 
laid, and several blocks show the remains of pro- 
jecting bosses (PLATE IV). These peculiarities are 
obviously due to the presence of some obstacle 


which prevented normal construction and at the same time hid this part of the temple 


from view.’ 


DOOR The west door is not placed symmetrically in the wall, but somewhat to the south of 
the axis, beneath the second column from the south. Its irregular position and small size 


1 The course below the orthostate, now broken, seems originally to have had the same length as the others in the 


interior, where it was visible. 


2 The conditions are described in greater detail and the inferences which may be drawn from them are discussed 


in the section on the Cecropium (pp. 127 ff.). 


DESCRIPTION 59 


led some of the early writers on the Erechtheum to consider it a Christian addition, but 
the presence of the usual lintel, two courses high, was soon recognized ? as satisfactory evi- 
dence that the door was part of the original design, and its antiquity is now universally 
accepted. In order that the sill might range approximately with the middle step and the 
sill of the small door from the North Portico, the bottom of the door was cut through the 
upper half of the course beneath the orthostates, and this also has been regarded by some 
as a later alteration, designed to increase the height of the opening or even to transform a 
window into a door.’ It may, however, be regarded as certain that there has been no essen- 
tial change of level here, for the joint in the centre of the sill is perfectly tight, whereas 
if the sill had been appreciably cut down, the anathyrosis, which is normally only about 
0.10 m. deep, would have been destroyed and a gap left between the stones. 

The door, however, has not remained entirely unchanged. The dressing of the reveals 
is too poor to be part of the Greek construction, and a finished surface on the upper step 
at the north side of the door, about 0.04 m. inside the present line of the opening (Fig. 36), 
indicates that the door has been widened by that amount on this side. No such direct evi- 
dence exists on the south side, but as the axis of the present door very nearly coincides with 
that of the lintel, it is probable that the widening has been approximately symmetrical, 
and that the original width of the opening was about 1.30 m. or four Attic feet.t. The outer 
portion of the sill has also been cut down about 0.03 m., probably at the same time that the 
doorway was widened. 

With these two stages in the history of the opening are associated two sets of sinkings 
in the threshold for the pivots of a double door. The one set is in line with the inner face of 
the wall; the other approximately on its axis. The former are farther apart and deeper 
than the latter, which are at present too shallow to be of much use as sockets. Obviously 
the first set is connected with the later, wider opening, to which must also be assigned the 
traces of a casing on the interior of the building around the top of the door (PLATE X). 
The other set, then, belongs to the earlier door, and here too remains of cuttings at the top 
of the reveals (PLatTEs XI, XII) and the absence of holes for pivots in the soffit of the lintel 
show that a wooden frame was set in the opening. At the same time it can be stated posi- 
tively from the technique that even these sockets do not go back to the fifth century B.c., 
though they may well be contemporary with the earlier set of similar cuttings in the 
North Door (p. 103), and like them belong to the Roman repairs. The later sockets and the 
widened door are probably due to the transformation into a church. In the course of these 
changes all traces of the original Greek door have disappeared. 


1 For example, Fauvel in Legrand, Gal. ant., I, p. 76 (see App. A, XIV, 13), and note (cette porte est faite de force) 
on his section of the west wall, Bibl. Nat., Estampes, Gb, 15a, fol. 14. 

2 See J. Woods, Letters of an Architect, II, p. 256. 

3 Kinnard in Stuart and Revett,? II, p. 73, note b; Wilkins, Prolus. Archit., pp. 12-13, 28, pl. VIII (enlargement of 
a window); Borrmann, Ath. Mitt., VI, 1881, p. 374 (original sill on level of upper step). Michaelis (J.-M., Atlas, pls. 
XXIII, A*, XXIV D*, XXV, XXVI) agrees with Borrmann. 

4 This alteration in the width of the door has destroyed the evidence of the original inclination of the sides. 


STRING 
COURSE 


60 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The west wall is crowned by a string course, 0.244 m. high, 
with mouldings which project 0.14 m. on both the interior and 
exterior faces (PLATES XIX, XX, 2, XXX, 1). Outside of the 
building these mouldings were left plain, but on the inside the 
cyma reversa at the bottom was decorated with the usual carved 
leaf-and-tongue ornament (PLATE XX, 4). At the north end the 
exterior mouldings finish against the projecting wall of the North 
Portico (Fig. 46); at the south end they have been broken away 
beneath the south angle of the anta (probably in a search for 
lead), but a cutting in the west end of the thin slab south of the 
anta shows that they extended to this point, though it must 
remain uncertain whether they were returned against the south 
wall or cut off abruptly (PLates IV, XIII) like the cornice of 
the Porch of the Maidens at this same corner (Fig. 81). 


2. THE WEST FACADE BETWEEN THE LOWER WALL 
AND THE ENTABLATURE 


(a) The Greek Construction. — Above the wall just de- 
scribed, the West Facade, as seen by travellers before 1827 and 
as rebuilt in 1904, is not that originally erected, but is due to 
an almost complete reconstruction with extensive alterations, 
carried out apparently near the end of the first century B.c. The 
information supplied by the building itself as to the earlier form 
of this facade is scanty enough, but when supplemented by the 
inscriptions, is still sufficient to permit a fairly certain resto- 
ration. 

There is no evidence of any change below the bases of the 
columns and the course of moulding which connects them, and 
although the tops of these stones contain later cuttings for dow- 
els, etc., the blocks themselves were not disturbed during the 
Roman repairs and are still dowelled to the string course on which 
they rest. Hence it seems clear that in the original, as in the 
later, construction there were half columns on the exterior with 
corresponding pilasters to a certain height on the interior of the 
building. The bases of these pilasters have almost wholly dis- 
appeared, but the amount of their original projection (0.028 m.) 
beyond the moulding between them can still be directly meas- 
ured at two points, since a corner from the north side of the 
third pilaster from the north has survived as a fragment, now 


nea@! 
poe 


C= Lae Ss 


a 


Fycure 39. SECTION THROUGH 
SMALL DOORWAY IN NORTH 
PORTICO, LOOKING EAST 


DESCRIPTION 61 


replaced (PLATE X; Fig. 41), and the east side of the base of the south anta, which is 
exactly in line with the bases of the pilasters, is in situ and comparatively well preserved 
(Fig. 41). The moulded course between the bases of the pilasters has suffered considerably, 
but, so far as can be judged from the existing remains, it was marked in the interval be- 
tween the south anta and the first pilaster by a more elaborate treatment of the lower torus, 
since the fillet between each pair of channels was here given a reeding between two flutes 
(Prarn, XXX, 2, 3). 

The bases of both antae are cut on the same stones as the moulded string course beneath 
them, and in the case of the north anta this stone is itself a part of the adjacent block in the 
wall of the North Portico (PLarz XX, 11, 12; Figs. 41, 46). The south anta is Greek 


WW 


Figure 40. ANGLE OF NORTHWEST ANTA AND NORTH 

WALL, COURSES 8 AND 9, SHOWING BLOCK TWO COURSES 

HIGH IN ANTA, END OF GREEK LINTEL, AND TOP OF 
WEST JAMB OF NORTH DOOR: ISOMETRIC 


throughout and, with the exception of the capital and the two courses below it,! remained 
undisturbed until 1907, when during the restoration of the south wall the blocks at the 
southwest. corner as far as course 6 were removed and later carefully replaced. The north 
anta is formed on blocks of the wall behind it in courses 6, 7, 10, and 11 (Figs. 39, 46). In 
courses 8 and 9 the anta was a separate block two courses high, belonging to the Greek con- 
struction, since a ke clamp of standard length was visible in its upper surface during the 
repairs of 1904 (Figs. 40, 46). This block ranged with and in part abutted against the 
original lintel of the great North Door (p. 101), and could thus be secured more easily.” 
The dressing here on the east side of the anta and on the adjoining fragment of the lintel 

1 These three courses fell or were removed during the siege of the Acropolis by the Turks in 1826-27, and were 
later replaced by Pittakis. See below, Ch. V, pp. 558, 564. 

2 The east half of this block, which alone was in contact with the lintel, was cut away during the Roman repairs. 


The south corner of the lintel has been broken off, destroying all traces of the cutting for a clamp corresponding to 
that in the west half of the anta (Fig. 40). 


ANTAE 


62 THE ERECHTHEUM 


is Roman. Above the sixth course the anta was rebuilt, partly with Lille 
new material, in 1904. The capital is Roman (PLate XX, 2). Both a 
antae were 0.737 m. wide at the bottom. The north anta, judging ee “| aa 
from measurements taken on the west side and from calculations ih 
based on the dimensions of the Greek epistyle, probably tapered to a 
width of 0.723 m. at the top. Above course 9 the south anta is cut 
away, on account of the niche in the interior, to a uniform width of 
0.405 m. The west faces of both antae incline inward. Calculation 
from the position of the epistyle shows that the east face of the 
north anta was vertical. The east face of the south anta is vertical 
in the lower courses, but above course 9 it is parallel to the inclined 
west face. Both the south face of the north anta and the north face 
of the south anta lean slightly toward the north, though the inclina- 
tion is not the same in both (PLaTE XX, 2, 3,8). The remains of the 
Greek facade, which have just been described, may now be examined 
for evidence as to the missing parts of the original structure. 
COLUMNS Cuttings for dowels and pry holes in the top of the base course 
nee mah (Figs. 41, 42) prove that the lower part of the intercolumniations 
was filled by a wall, and that this wall with the pilasters was laid 


continuously both from the north anta and from the south until the 


last stone between the two sections was dropped into place approx- 
imately behind the third column from the north. It is thus out of 
the question that the columns with the pilasters behind them formed 
a series of isolated supports which were first placed in position and 
then connected by sections of intervening wall. Moreover, the en- 
gaged columns were not cut from separate blocks and attached to 
the wall, for in the centre of each column base is a square cutting, 
the east corner of which is so close to the line of the west face of the 
wall (PLatse XIX, 7; Figs. 41, 42) as to exclude the possibility of a 
vertical joint at this point. It is probable, therefore, that the usual 
modern method in such cases, and the best from a constructive point 
of view, was followed, namely, that the columns were cut on pro- 
jecting blocks of the wall. The square cuttings just mentioned re- 
semble in form and position those commonly found in the drums of 
columns, but they cannot have been intended for empolia, as it was 
impossible to move the block above the base because the adjoining 
block on the north, or south, was already in position. It is probable 
that they contained wooden dowels which would have aided in setting 
accurately the block above the base. 


1 METRE 


Figure 41. WEST FACADE: PLAN OF TOP OF COLUMN BASES AND OF MOULDED COURSE BETWEEN THEM 


DESCRIPTION 63 


In the four northern intercolumniations the dowels also show that the blocks of the wall 
were so placed that no joint in the first course fell on a pilaster, although owing to the 
small length of the stones used — about 0.65 m. or two Attic feet — these joints sometimes 
fall very close to one (Fig. 41). The length of these blocks is given by the dowels; their height 
has been restored (PLaTE XIII) from the indications on the north face of the south anta. 

In the southern intercolumniation, however, the base moulding and the lowest course of 
the wall were formed by a single stone which filled the entire space (Fig. 41). In connection 


Figur 42. WEST FACADE: BASE OF NORTH COLUMN AND ADJACENT BLOCKS 
OF MOULDED COURSE, BEFORE RESTORATION OF 1904 


with the Roman repairs, the northern half of this block was cut away as far as the moulding, 
and the outer face of the remaining half dressed off for about 0.01 m.,! the line of the older 
as well as of the later face being still visible on the anta (Fig. 43). 

The height of this intercolumnar wall, as originally constructed, may be determined 
with considerable certainty. Evidence for a second course, ranging with course 10 of the 
antae, is furnished by a cutting for a4 clamp in the south anta (PLATE XII). An anathy- 
rosis on the north face of the same anta, in course 9, proves the existence of a third course 
of the wall (Fig. 43). There is also a cutting, 0.247 m. high, on the same face of this anta in 


1 This is the amount of reduction at the south end; at the north the original thickness was more nearly retained. 


INTER- 
COLUMNAR 
WALL 


GRILLES 


64 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the lower part of the next (eighth) course, extending for 0.045 m. beyond the outer face of 
the intercolumnar wall (Fig. 43). As this cutting was intended to help in supporting the 
platform which existed in the temple at this point (p. 171), it also shows the height and 
projection beyond the face of the wall of the stone which here rested on the third course. 
Above this point the anta shows no trace of a wall in Greek times. In view of the suitable 
height and the desirability of some finish at the top of the wall, it is probable that a similar 
coping existed in the other intercolumniations, and it has been thus restored in PLATE XIII. 


Figure 43. WEST FACADE: NORTH FACE OF 
SOUTH ANTA, COURSES 8-11 


This conclusion is confirmed by the difference in the dressing of the surface between courses 
8 and 9 on the south face of the north anta. They are formed, as has been said, on a single 
block, but the lower half, corresponding to the third course of the low wall, has not been 
dressed to its final surface except in a narrow band along the outer and inner edges, 
while the upper half, against which the coping would abut, is completely finished (Fig. 40). 

The accounts of 409/8 B.c. show that above this low wall or parapet four of the inter- 
columniations were closed by grilles which, from the low cost (40 drachmae) and the em- 
ployment of a workman who appears elsewhere as a carpenter, were probably of wood.? 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription, XJ, col. m1, ll. 31-34, and Commentary, p. 370. 


DESCRIPTION 65 


Neither the existing remains, however, nor the inscriptions furnish any decisive evidence 
as to the appearance of the supports between the grilles in the interior. To continue the 
pilasters on the inner surface of the intercolumnar wall as far as the architrave would lead 
to architectural difficulties above the parapet, one of which is that such pilasters would be 
too slender, since they would be much narrower than the columns on the exterior instead of 
having approximately the same width. In the Roman restoration the difference in width 
between column and pilaster was concealed by the intervening wall. It seems preferable, 
therefore, to continue the half-columns of the exterior as full columns above the low wall. 
In plan, however, these columns were probably not struck from one centre, but (according 


; ere vee Te a 
a fs: € y 


p08 > 


(e) 1 METRE- 


Figure 44. WEST FACADE: PLAN OF COLUMN, INTERCOLUMNAR WALL, AND SOUTH ANTA, 
RESTORED ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK CONSTRUCTION 


to an unpublished suggestion of Professor Dérpfeld)! consisted of two semi-circles having 
different centres, as shown in Figure 44. Had columns of the given radius been circular, 
the inner face of the Greek architrave would have projected beyond the top mouldings of 
the capitals — a thing unknown in good Greek work.? On the other hand, columns of this 
plan with a balustrade between are found in stoas, e.g., in the Stoa of Attalus at Athens 
and the stoa at Assos.’ It will be noted that in this restoration both the architrave and the 
complete column have the same axis as the lower wall, a good construction; that the 
centre of the inner half of the column is in line with the east face of the upper part of the 


1 In Ath. Mitt., XX VII, 1903, p. 466, Dérpfeld pointed out that the upper part of the Greek facade had full 
columns, but he did not suggest the presence of a narrow interval between the semi-circles. For another view of the 
Greek fagade, see Ch. IV, Inscription II, Commentary, p. 308. 

2 The Greek bases of the columns prove that the axes of the Roman shafts corresponded with those of the Greek, 
and there is no reason to doubt that the respective radii at the top and bottom were the same in both Greek and 
Roman times. If the Roman half-column were completed as a circular column, the distance between the volutes from 
east to west would be 0.602 m. The Greek architrave, however, which was wider than the Roman one (see p. 70), 
measured 0.658 m. on its soffit, and would project beyond:the inner top moulding of the capital. If the two semi-circles 
were separated by an interval of 0.054 m., the lowest fascia of the architrave both inside and outside would be aligned 
with the faces of the volutes, as in the East and North Porticoes (Phares XVI, XXII). 

3 Adler, Die Stoa des Kénigs Attalos zu Athen, pls. III, 1V, V1; Bacon, Investigations at Assos, pp. 48, 45, 47. 


COLUMNS 


66 THE ERECHTHEUM 


south anta; and that the centre of the outer half is aligned with the west edge of the coping 
which crowns the intercolumnar wall. The intervening flat member furnishes a natural and 
simple point of attachment for the grille, which would rest on the projecting coping and be 
neatly received not only against the columns, but also against the south anta, had this been 
desired (Fig. 44). 

As the inscription shows that only four intercolumniations were filled by the grille, it 
has been generally agreed that the southern opening, in view of its peculiar relation to the 
Cecropium (p. 130), was left open, and this opinion is strongly confirmed by a study of the 
building itself. As restored in Figure 44 the grille could have been attached to the north face 
of the south anta, but although this face is well preserved, it shows no trace of any such 
attachment. If, on the other hand, the grille were set farther east, flush with the west face 
of the intercolumnar wall below the coping, it could not have been fastened to the north face 
of the anta, which, as has been said, is here only about half its usual width; nor is it likely 
that it ran past the anta into the niche, since the latter shows no marks of attachment. It 
may be added that such an arrangement, which would make the grille in the southern inter- 
columniation wider than the others, would be very unsightly, as seen from the interior of 
the temple. 

(B) The Roman Alterations. — The essential difference between the original fagade and 
its successor is in the treatment of the intercolumniations. In the reconstruction the wooden 
grilles disappeared and the five openings were filled by a solid wall, broken only in the 
three central intercolumniations by windows. Everything between the antae and above 
the bases of the engaged columns was renewed at this time. It seems probable that the fire, 
which so damaged the east front and the side walls, swept through the temple and, bursting 
out between the columns at the west, changed to lime much of the marble with which it 
came in contact. 

The engaged columns are shown to be Roman by the forms of dowel and lewis which 
are found in them, by the differences in design between their ornamentation and that em- 
ployed elsewhere in the building, and by the relatively poor work of the stone cutter; and 
similar evidence is conclusive as to the date of the wall and the windows. 

The height of the columns is 5.613 m. Their entasis is more pronounced than that of the 
columns of the North Portico (p. 81).2- The maximum entasis is 0.0132 m. and occurs 2.97 m. 
above the bottom of the base. The curve approximates very closely to that formed by two 
hyperbolas, almost identical in equation, having a common centre and tangent to each other 
at the point of maximum entasis (Fig. 45).? It cannot be determined with certainty whether 


1 A different restoration of the interior of the Greek facade and of the south intercolumniation above the low wall 
has been proposed by L. B. Holland; see below, Ch. IV, pp. 363 f., and B. C. H., XLVI, 1922, p. 479. 

* The entasis was determined by stretching a thread along the best preserved fillet and measuring to the surface 
of the column at twenty-two points, all well preserved. The curve given by these points, when plotted, was investi- 
gated by the method of parallel chords with reference to a conic section. 

’ In this drawing the horizontal distances are magnified eighty times in relation to the vertical heights. The 
common centre.of the two hyperbolas is at the point marked ceNTRE. It is probable that the designer intended his 


DESCRIPTION 67 


the original Greek columns had an entasis or, like the columns of the East Portico, dimin- 
ished in a straight line, but the following considerations favor the former supposition. The 
columns were shorter and slenderer and bore a relatively greater load than those at the east 
end, and, consequently, they may have been given an entasis to increase their apparent 
strength. Moreover it is not improbable that in this particular the Roman columns followed 
the Greek model. 

In these columns the channels next to the wall are narrower than the others, proving 
conclusively that the columns were planned to be engaged, and not simply cut down from 


ARCHITRA VE 


M 


J 


Ba RM aa | Pek a ee [ea tale 


— 56/5 — 
oe 


7 
[F 
a ye 


Rem e mec ne ew emo eee 


ae ee te 


Figurn 45. WEST FACADE: CURVE OF ENTASIS OF ROMAN ENGAGED COLUMNS 


columns which stood free. Where the projecting sills of the windows came in contact with 
the columns, the latter are unfluted, probably because here, as elsewhere, the channels were 
carved after the columns were in place. The absence of any unfluted portion adjacent to 
the wall in the north and south intercolumniations indicates plainly that here no course 
projected to match the sills of the windows. 

maximum entasis to fall half way between the bottom of the base and the bottom of the architrave, and to be equal 
to the width of a fillet (0.012 m.), according to the rule of Vitruvius (III, 5, 14). For this method of laying out an 


entasis and its advantages, see G. P. Stevens, ‘Entasis of Roman Columns,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in 
Rome, IV, 1924, pp. 121-152. 


68 THE ERECHTHEUM 


On two of the columns the anthemion of the necking is cut on a separate drum (PLATE 
XTX, 1), while on the other two it is carved on the shaft of the column (PLaTE XX, 5). 
Inwood states expressly ! that the former pair were those at the south, but in the restora- 
tion of 1904 they were placed at the north. On the capitals belonging to this group the 
number of eggs below the guilloche is seventeen, not fifteen as given by Stuart,’ who, 


Ficure 46. WEST FACADE: NORTH INTERCOLUMNIATION, 
COURSES 5-12, AS REBUILT IN 1904 


however, may possibly have found this number on a capital belonging to the other group, 
where the eggs are now missing. The eyes of the volutes of the capitals are flat, undecorated, 
and unbored. ; 
WALL AND The general structure of the Roman intercolumnar wall and the adjustment of the win- 
WINDOWS dows are shown in PLATES IV, X, XI, XTX, and XX, and do not require any further de- 


1 Inwood, ed. min., p. 3. 2 Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. II, pl. XII. 


DESCRIPTION 69 


scription, but attention may be called to a few points of detail. When the wall was built 
in the northern intercolumniation, the anta was cut away for half its width from top to 
bottom to receive it (Figs. 40, 41, 46).1 In the southern intercolumniation it is practically 
certain that the restorers did not leave the space open, but treated it like the others.2 The 
mouldings on the east face of the anta are roughly cut away for about one-half the distance 
from the north face to the south corner to accommodate the new wall (Fig. 109), and in the 
upper surface of the corner block of the epicranitis are the cuttings for two == clamps by 
which the new stone was held on the south and on the west (Fig. 110). 

_ The profile of the course connecting the capitals of the pilasters on the interior face of 
the wall (PLATE XX, 2, 4) is known only from the drawings of Stuart and Revett,? where the 
lower member is suppressed into a flat fascia. A somewhat similar suppression occurs in the 
original Greek construction in the Porch of the Maidens on the course connecting the 
capitals of the antae (PLatTes VII, XX VI, XXXVI, 1). 

When the wall between the columns was rebuilt in 1904, it was found impossible to de- 
termine exactly the original position of the blocks used; all that was certain was that from 
their dimensions the stones had once belonged to this wall. Inwood’s drawing (PLATE 
LIII, 1) was followed in placing a narrow course in the northern intercolumniation to align 
with the sills of the windows (Fig. 46),4 but no fragments of such a course were found, 
and it does not appear in Dalton’s view (PLATE L, 2). In the restoration of the jambs of 
the windows the profile of the exterior was repeated on the interior, as is shown in the 
section (PLATE XIX, 4), where the irregular line indicates how much is preserved. Stuart 
and Inwood, though differing from one another, are both incorrect in the amount of the 
reveal given to the jamb.° As reconstructed the jambs of the windows are inclined inward 
0.008 m. per metre; according to Stuart and Revett the inclination was 0.017 m. 


3. THE ENTABLATURE 


With the exception of scanty remains of the cornice, to be described later, the Greek 
entablature of the West Facade has wholly disappeared. It cannot, of course, have differed 
materially from the later reconstruction, though some variations in detail may still be 
traced. 

On the top of the capital of the southwest anta two weather marks indicate the approxi- 


1 The block of the anta above the base shows a poor mitre quite unworthy of Greek workmanship, and probably 
due to Roman recutting when the new wall was fitted into place. 

2 That the anta was simply built out to the normal width seems too improbable an alternative to be seriously 
considered. 

3 Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. II, pl. XIV. 

4 Inwood, pl. I. Inwood says that such a course existed ‘‘ without any projection whatever in the outer interco- 
lumniation of the western front”’; ed. maj., Book XXIV, p. 113. 

5 Stuart, op. cit., II, Ch. II, pl. XIV, 5; Inwood, op. cit., pl. XIV. Kinnard (Stuart and Revett,? II, p. 74, note c) 
argues that Stuart was wrong in supposing that the windows were revealed on the inside. They were, he says, evi- 
dently intended for frames, as there was a groove about two inches deep all around the centre of the opening, and a 
plug hole in the centre of the sill. 


EPISTYLE 


70 THE ERECHTHEUM 


mate positions of the western edge of two successive epistyles. The later mark, which can 
be identified as such by the presence of dowel cuttings with horizontal pour channels (Fig. 
110), shows that on this side the new epistyle was set about 0.033 m. behind the old one 
(PLaTE XX, 2).1 The consequent reduction in the projection of the epistyle beyond the 
face of the frieze was occasioned by the fact that in the Roman restoration the sculptured 
figures of the frieze were omitted. That the Roman epistyle was also about 0.28 m. shorter 
than the Greek is shown by another weather mark running east and west with a pry hole 
on the south and a Roman dowel cutting with a pour channel on the north (Fig. 110), and 
this evidence is confirmed by the length of the recently discovered block from the southern 
end of the Roman architrave, described below. The position of the inner face of the epistyle 
seems to have remained unchanged. There was no such reason for alteration in the interior 
of the building as was furnished by the omission of the sculptures on the exterior, and the 
Greek and Roman dowel cuttings in the epicranitis on the south wall (Fig. 110) show that 
there, at any rate, the east side of the southwest epistyle probably occupied the same position 
in Roman as in Greek times.” On the inside the lowest fascia of the epistyle was 0.008 m. 
west of the east face of the intercolumnar wall and probably aligned with the east face of 
the volutes of the columns. As the Roman epistyle is 0.625 m. wide on the soffit, the Greek 
epistyle probably measured 0.658 m. Its lowest fascia was set back 0.039 m. from the bot- 
tom of the west face of both antae and 0.028 m. from the top and bottom of the east face 
of the north anta (Fig. 44). The architrave is regularly slightly narrower than the top 
of the anta, but the difference here is somewhat greater than in either the East or the North 
Portico. 

The order of the epistyle blocks is determinable and the four northern blocks were re- 
paired and correctly replaced in 1904.4: The northern block is identifiable from the marks 
left on its face by the raking cornice of the projecting portion of the North Portico (PLATE 
XX, 7). The southern block (Fig. 47) which appears in some of the early drawings,*® was 
removed by the Turks in 1805, according to Dodwell, and ‘‘placed over one of the doors in 
the fortress.”’ ®° There it remained, unrecognized, until the Turkish additions were cleared 


1 The Greek weather mark is in line with the west face of the volutes of the Roman half-columns, which indi- 
cates, — if we suppose, and it is a reasonable supposition, the Roman half-columns to be copies of the western 
portion of the Greek columns, — that the bottom fascia of the Greek architrave was in line with the face of the volute 
of the Greek column (PuatTes XIX, right; XX, 2; Figs. 44, 110). This corresponds with the actual construction in 
the East and North Porticoes, in both of which the lowest fascia of the architrave is directly over the face of the 
volute (PLates XVI, XXII, XXIII). 

2 The Greek epistyle, however, was probably reduced in width over the southern intercolumniation and the thin 
part of the anta; see section on the Niche, pp. 175 ff. 

3 In Figure 44 all measurements of the anta refer to the base. 

4 The block which now covers the southern intercolumniation is modern (PLatrs IV, XXXIII, 3). 

’ This block is shown in the views by Dalton (1749; Puats L, 1, 2), Stuart (1751-54; Puars LI, 1), Pars (1766; 
Puate LI, 2), Gell (ca. 1800; Figs. 220, 221), Smirke (ca. 1802; Puats LI, 3), and Dodwell (1805; Puars LII, 1). 
Gell in one drawing (Fig. 220) continues the architrave for some distance along the south wall with a mitre at the angle; 
but this is certainly his own restoration, for the evidence is conclusive that there had been no architrave on the south 
wall, except at the east end, for many years. 

§ Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 352; cf. Kinnard in Stuart and Revett,? II, p. 74, note b. 


Witt lbp ite 
LAE Ean, 


Figure 47. WEST FACADE: SOUTH BLOCK OF ROMAN ARCHITRAVE. ABOVE: ISOMETRIC DRAWING. 
BELOW: WEST FACE, SHOWING TURKISH INSCRIPTION (1926) 


eg 


72 THE ERECHTHEUM 


away from the entrance to the Acropolis, when it disappeared. It was 
found, however, in 1922, and now (1925) lies at the foot of the Nike 
bastion near the guard’s house on the south side.! Its length (2.346 m.) 
corresponds with that deduced, before its discovery, for the southern 
Roman architrave from the weather marks on the top of the epicranitis 
at the southwest corner (Fig. 110) and also indicated by the drawings 
of Dalton and Dodwell (Piates L, 2; LII, 1), in both of which this block 
plainly ends not far from the axis of the south wall. In the top are three 
cuttings with pour channels for the Roman dowels which held the blocks 
of the frieze. Of the cuttings for the Roman e— clamps only one, in 
the south end, has survived; the two cuttings, which doubtless existed 
in the north end, and the second southern one, shown by Dodwell, were 
destroyed when the back was roughly and irregularly cut away in 
adapting the stone to its new position over the Turkish gateway. The 
next block to the north is identified as the second by a B as mason’s 
mark on its upper surface (Fig. 114, F). The stone from the middle 
intercolumniation is fixed by a clamp cutting which fits one in the 


1 The discovery of an architrave block from the Erechtheum in 1922 was reported by 
B. Schweitzer, Arch. Anz., XX XVII, 1922 (published in 1924), col. 251, and its identity 
with the missing architrave from the West Facade was recognized in 1924 by W. B. Dins- 
moor, who furnished the measurements for Figure 47. The block has suffered considerable 
damage since its removal from its original position. In addition to the destruction of the 
back, noticed in the text, there are cuttings for Turkish clamps both in the face and in the 
top (Fig. 47, at aa and BB), while the three fasciae, faint traces of which may be detected 
close to the south end, have been dressed down to an even surface, on which has been en- 
graved in eight sunken panels a Turkish inscription in praise of the strong fortress and of 
the zeal displayed in its construction by Mustapha Effendi, the Voivode, or Turkish gover- 
nor of the city. Thisinscription, with a transliteration and a metrical translation into Greek, 
was published in the Athenian paper Aidv, November 21, 1886, as carved on a fragment 
from some Ionic building then “‘izép rod rpds avarodds rokou THs ovrAPovs Oowris ela ddov Tis 
*Axporodews.”’ In his Mynueta ris icropias t&v ’AOnvGv, Tovpxoxparia, I, p. 211, D. G. Kam- 
pouroglos also published independently a transliteration and a Greek prose translation; and 
the Greek metrical translation was reprinted from the Aidy by Th. N. Philadelpheus in his 
‘Ioropia t&v ’AOnv&v ext Toupxoxpartias, II, p. 63. Unfortunately the date, which is in a small 
semicircular panel at the bottom of the face, was read as 1120 of the Hegira, or 1708 «.p., 
thus preventing the identification of the block and also giving rise to the statement that the 
fortifications of the Acropolis were strengthened by the Turks in that year. Although the 
first two digits have been almost effaced, apparently by a cannon-shot, careful examina- 
tion in a very favorable light by B. H. Hill and C. W. Blegen has shown quite certainly that 
the second digit was 2, and that, therefore, the inscription belongs to the year of the Hegira 
1220, which began on March 23/April 1, 1805 (de Mas-Latrie, T'résor de Chronologie, p. 155). 
The inscription, therefore, confirms fully the identification of this block with the southern 
architrave of the West Facade. The vaulted entrance, above which this block was placed, 
led through a strong wall which extended from the southwest corner of the Beulé gate (or 
rather of the Turkish lower battery which concealed the gate) to the northeast corner of the 
Odeum of Herodes Atticus. It is C on Verneda’s plan (Fig. 216) and also appears in the 
plans of Burnouf (La Ville et  Acropole d’ Athénes, pl. I11, 6) and Beulé (I, pl. II), and in the 
view from the west given by Bohn (Propylaeen, pl. I). 


poenirssssnttsenr 


i 
i 
i 
4 


f 


Ficurer 48. WEST FAQADE: PLAN OF TOP OF EXISTING ROMAN ARCHITRAVE 


DESCRIPTION 73 


stone just mentioned (PLATE XX, 9; Fig. 48). The remaining block must, therefore, belong 
in the only vacant place — the second intercolumniation from the north. 

All these epistyle blocks are doubtless Roman, and not the Greek blocks cut down and 
re-used. At any rate there is no trace of a Greek dowel in the bottom of any of them to 
fasten them to the capitals, nor in the tops of the northern and southern blocks to hold the 
blocks of the Greek frieze. In the other three epistylia the upper part was on a separate 
slab — a method of construction which is certainly not Greek. In the top of the fourth 
block from the north there is in the north end a curious cutting, as if to turn a &4 into a 
re clamp (PLate XX, 15; Fig. 48). The cutting (0.117 m.), however, is much shorter 
than is usual for the Greek 4 clamp and but slightly in excess of the normal length of the 
later p= clamp, and the need of an upper slab to complete the epistyle shows that this is 
not the original Greek block re-used, though it may, of course, have been fashioned from 
another old Greek block. The little k4 clamps, which with three metal pins fastened a 
small broken corner to the south end of the same block, are not of a size used in Greek work 
on the Erechtheum, and may be considered Roman.! 

The northern and southern epistyle blocks were each worked from a single stone and the 
northern block was hoisted with the aid of two lewises (PLATE XX, 7).?- The other three 
epistylia had each a single lewis, and were formed of a block containing the three fasciae 
and of a slab on which was the crowning moulding (PLATE XIX). These slabs are now miss- 
ing, but pry holes in the tops of the existing blocks allow their lengths to be approximately 
determined and show that they broke joints, though somewhat irregularly, with these 
blocks (Fig. 48). They were doweled apparently with the aid of vertically drilled pour 
channels, as only one of the seven dowel cuttings preserved on the stones below shows a 
pour channel of the horizontal type. The m= clamps holding them to one another have 
been restored (PLATE XIX) from one in the south end of the northern epistyle block, which 
must have secured a slab. 

The frieze blocks preserved show no dowels for the attachment of sculptured figures and 
are, in fact, old statue bases with the bottoms outwards and the tops, with the footmarks of 
the statues, towards the interior (PLATE X; Fig. 207). They bear as masons’ marks A, B, [ 
(PLATE XX, 10), and the matching of the clamps shows that the order runs from south to 
north, so that they would seem to belong at the southern end of the frieze. Although the 
blocks above the southern and part of the second intercolumniation had already disappeared 
in 1749,? they would seem to have come to light again, for the length of the replaced portion 
agrees fairly well with what is missing in Dalton’s drawing (PuaTe L, 2), while that of the 


1 The cuttings in the epistyle for these clamps are, respectively, 0.058 m. and 0.078 m. long, but the clamps were 
probably somewhat more than twice this length, since a greater extension into the missing corner would have been 
needed to secure this little piece firmly. 

2 The holes for lewises in the southern block, if they ever existed, were destroyed when its back was cut away. 

8 Dalton (PuatTe L, 2) and Pars (Pate LI, 2) agree as to the amount of frieze in place in 1749 and 1766. Stuart 
and Gell, apparently by an oversight, have added another block (Piats LI, 1; Fig. 219). 


FRIEZE 


GREEK 
CORNICE 


74 THE ERECHTHEUM 


first and second blocks is consistent with the indications furnished by the three cuttings for 
dowels in the top of the southern architrave block (Figs. 47, 48) as to the probable length 
of the frieze above.! The rest of the frieze had been removed before 1800,” and has apparently 
perished. In the restoration of 1904 the original order of the blocks was preserved, but they 
were placed at the north end for structural reasons. 

With the exception of two, or possibly three, blocks the Greek cornice has disappeared, 
and its reconstruction is almost wholly dependent on the evidence of the inscriptions.’ 
These show that the corner blocks were respectively seven and one-half and six Attic feet 
long and three and one-half feet wide, and it seems probable that the longer block occupied 
the southern corner with its long face toward the south, that the shorter was similarly 
placed at the other end with its long face toward the north, and that the space between was 
filled by six blocks four feet and one five feet long (Puate XXI, 4). 

Among the remains of the cornice from the Erechtheum is a block (PLaTE XXI, 3, 5), 
1.297 m. long, which, judging from its cross-section and the cuttings for dowels in its upper 
surface, must have come from under a tympanum. It is of good Greek work and had 
clamps at both ends, but the cutting for a m= clamp shows that it was re-used in the 
Roman repairs. The back for a distance of 0.405 m. from the left end is cut away through 
the entire thickness of the block, laying bare one of the dowels. Such a cutting is most 
easily explained as intended for a wooden beam which rested on the backing of the frieze. 
The southern half of the east cornice is preserved (p. 24) and the data supplied by the dowels 
in the frieze and the presumable position of the joints of the tympanum forbid the suppo- 
sition that this stone is from the northern half.‘ It must, therefore, belong to the west 
cornice, and, as the dowel cuttings in the upper surface show, under a joint in the tym- 
panum and its backing. The evidence of the inscriptions * indicates that neither the central 
stone of this tympanum nor those to the south had backers; hence this cornice block must 
have been beneath one of the joints to the north. As the lengths of the central and of the 
two northern stones are given in the inscription, the position of these joints is known 
(PLatE XXI, 4), unless indeed the central stone were placed unsymmetrically, which 
would be very unusual. It is clear that this cornice block cannot be placed under the first 
joint to the north of the centre, since then the purlin would be brought impossibly close to 


1 Certainty on this point is probably unattainable, since there is no record of the cuttings for dowels in the bottoms 
of the frieze blocks, and it cannot now be determined whether they corresponded with those in the architrave. 

2 See the drawings by Smirke, Dodwell, and Gell (PLatss LI, 3, LI, 1; Figs. 220, 221). 

3 The evidence is presented and fully discussed in Ch. IV, Commentary on the Inscriptions, pp. 356 ff. 

4 All the cornice blocks of the east pediment were dowelled at the right or north end. This stone has a shift hole 
at the left end and dowel cuttings at both ends, but none of the latter can be combined with the dowel cuttings in the 
east frieze. Moreover, if the stone is placed next to the north corner at the east end, the height of the beam which 
rested in the cutting is excessive, being greater than that of the ridge beam of the North Portico, or of any known 
beam in the Parthenon or the Theseum. It may be added that, apart from this block, there are no traces of Roman 
repairs on the east cornice. 


5 See Ch. IV, Commentary, pp. 361 f. For a different reconstruction, see W. B. Dinsmoor, A. J. A., XVII, 
1913, pp. 254 f. 


DESCRIPTION 75 


the ridge beam and would also be excessively deep. The position under the next joint at 
the north end (PLatr XXI, 4) does, however, fulfill all the conditions. If the block is 
placed there, the distance to the north angle is seven and one-half Attic feet, or the length 
of an ordinary cornice block, four feet, plus the width of the corner block, three and one- 
half feet. If we assume the same thickness of rafters and cross-pieces as in the North 
Portico (0.262 m.), the height of the purlin at the north joint of the cornice block would 
be 0.58 m., within 0.005 m. of the height of the ridge beam in the North Portico (PLATE 
XXIV) as measured at the side, and perfectly suitable for a purlin. The dowel cutting and 
shift hole in the left end of this stone show that the Greek cornice was laid from south to 
north, while the pry holes in the upper surface indicate that the tympanum was laid in the 
opposite direction. 

The second Greek block is a fragment now in the British Museum.! The greater part 
of the back has been cut away to render the stone more portable and there is little left be- 
yond the projecting portion with the mouldings. The carving of the mouldings is Greek, 
but the presence of a Roman pour channel, 0.135 m. from the left edge, and the rough 
dressing on the top show that it was re-used in the Roman reconstruction. Another cornice 
block from the Erechtheum was found in the foundations of the temple of Rome and Augus- 
tus, and has been attributed to the west entablature, though it may possibly have come 
from the North Portico.’ 

The other blocks of this cornice (PLATES IV, XIX) belong, as has been said, to the 
Roman restoration, and are doubtless in part identical with those shown in the drawings of 
Dalton and Stuart. Their original position cannot, however, be determined except in the 
ease of the re-used Greek block, which presumably was not moved, and of the partially 
preserved stone from the northwest corner. Both the crowning and the bed moulding of the 
cornice are uncarved where they turned the corner over the North Portico. Masons’ marks 
are visible on the upper surfaces and near the joints of these later blocks (Fig. 114).° 

As no remains of the Greek tympanum have been found, its reconstruction depends 
chiefly on epigraphic evidence,‘ and has therefore been treated in the commentary on the 
inscriptions (pp. 360 ff.). The beginning of the Roman tympanum is cut on the angle block 
of the horizontal cornice (PLATE XX, 1). Of the tympanum proper only the southern stone 
is preserved. It has an inclination of almost 1:4, and shows a cutting in its lower sur- 

1 Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 237, No. 415, where it is wrongly assigned to the North Portico; the label in the 
Museum correctly attributes it to the West Facade. 

2 Kawerau, Ant. Denk., I, 3, text to pls. XXV, XXVI, merely calls it “ein vom Erechtheion stammender Geison- 
block”; Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XXVIII, 1903, p. 466, definitely assigned it to the west entablature. The block cannot 
now be identified, and it is possible that it was placed on the North Portico in the recent restoration, when two Greek 
blocks which had been re-used by the Romans were discarded (p. 92). 

3 On these masons’ marks see Ch. IJ, p. 186. 

4 The only evidence apart from the inscriptions is furnished by the Greek cornice block just described (PLATE 
XXI, 3, 5). If this block is correctly placed, it shows the position of one of the vertical joints in the tympanum, the 


direction in which the blocks on either side of this joint were laid (i. e., from north to south), the thickness of the 
blocks at the joint, and the presence there of backers having about the same thickness as the blocks in front of them. 


ROMAN 
CORNICE 


TYMPANUM 


RAKING 
CORNICE 


ROOF 
BEAMS 


RAFTERS 
AND 
CROSS- 
PIECES 


76 THE ERECHTHEUM 


face for a Roman dowel to secure it to the horizontal cornice, as well as cuttings above for 
r= clamps, which fastened it to the backing. 

Several pieces of the later raking cornice have been found, including one which fits the 
beginning of the tympanum as worked on the north horizontal cornice (PLATE XX, 1), and 
thus establishes the identification. The raking cornice, as it starts from the angle, is only 
0.478 m. wide, but the presence of two cuttings for m1 clamps (PLATE XX, 1) proves that 
it had a backer, now lost. None of the other Roman blocks is sufficiently preserved to 
show its original width. In the restoration the Roman raking cornice, indicated by dotted 
lines in PLate XIX, has been given the same width (0.82 m.) as the Greek raking cornice 
at the east end (p. 27). The bed moulding of the raking cornice was never cut into leaves 
and tongues (PLATE XIX), and on the face of both raking and horizontal cornices much 
greater variation is permitted in the width of the eggs and darts than is found in the Greek 
work on the Erechtheum. 


VII. Tue Roor or tHe MAIN BUILDING 


The evidence of the Greek cornice block from the west pediment proves that, in addition 
to the indispensable ridge beam, there was on each side a beam, or purlin, as was indeed only 
reasonable, considering the distance from the ridge to the horizontal cornice (ca. 5.30 m.) 
and the weight of the marble tiling. These purlins would normally be placed midway be- 
tween ridge and cornice, and the specifications in the inscriptions 1 indicate that this was 
their position over the East Cella. The west cornice block shows, however, that over the 
west rooms they were farther from the ridge. In this position the purlins bore upon the 
great transverse beam (p. 154) much nearer its points of support on the side walls (Fig. 49), 
thus producing a smaller bending moment in the great beam than if they had been given 
the same position as over the East Cella. Moreover, by giving the struts, which helped to 
sustain the beam, an angle of slightly less than 45° with the side walls, it was possible to 
bring them directly under the points where the purlins rested on the beam (Fig. 49). In 
view of the weight of the marble roof which rested on the purlins, and of the long distance 
from the west wall to the east cross-wall, the additional support furnished by the struts at 
these points was very desirable. Exact data as to the size of these beams are lacking. As 
restored in Phares XV and XVII the ridge beam and the purlins have been given the width 
of the cutting for the purlin in the west cornice block (0.405 m.); their height is approxi- 
mately that of the ridge beam of the North Portico (p. 95). 

The only evidence concerning the rest of the wooden construction of the roof is furnished 
by the statement of the inscription that the cross-pieces (iudvres),2 which rested on the 

1 See Ch. ive Inscription IX, ll. 17-19, and Commentary, pp. 355 f. 

> In modern tiled roofs the tiles are nailed to “battens” resting on the rafters, and thus performing the functions 


of the Greek indvres (Sturgis, Dictionary of Architecture and Building, s. v. ‘Tile’). As, however, the word “batten” 


also denotes a piece of timber of a fixed size (Sturgis, op. cit.) it has seemed better to avoid a technical term which 
might prove misleading. 


DESCRIPTION _ U7 


rafters and supported the tiles, were seven palms (0.574 m.) long and ten dactyls (0.205 m.) 
wide.’ In the restorations (PLATES XVI, XVIII, XIX) they have been given a height of 
three dactyls (0.062 m.). It has also been assumed that they were set in notches cut in the 
raking cornice and in the rafters, a method of attachment which, without the use of nails, 
secured them firmly against slipping under the weight of the tiles, and also avoided the 
necessity of inserting wedges to compensate for the difference in inclination between the 
cross-pieces, which were parallel with the under surface of the tiles, and the rafters, which 
were parallel with the raking cornice (PLATE XVIII). The rafters have been given the 


Figure 49. SECTION LOOKING WEST, SHOWING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE 
TRANSVERSE BEAM AND OF THE TIMBERS OF THE ROOF 
OVER THE WEST ROOMS: RESTORED 


same height (0.231 m. = ca. 11 dactyls) as the raking cornice, and a width of 0.24 m. 
(ca. 12 dactyls). If a rafter is placed under each cover tile —a good position, since it 
brings the support beneath the greatest weight, — the axial distance (0.674 m.) is 0.10 m. 
greater than the length of the cross-pieces, thus leaving nearly half of the rafter unweakened 
by the notches cut for the cross-pieces, and also providing an air space which would ventilate 
and so help to preserve the wood. The whole wooden framework of this roof is slighter than 
that restored in the North Portico,? but it must be remembered that here the weight to be 
borne by each rafter was less and was also better distributed upon the supports. The use 
of smaller timbers is thus quite intelligible.* 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription XI, col. 11, ll. 16 ff. 
2 For the restoration of the roof of the North Portico and a comparison of the respective weights supported, 


see pp. 95 f. 

3 In Ch. IV, pp. 368-370, Fig. 189, will be found another restoration of the roof of the main building. As any 
reconstruction, in the absence of conclusive evidence, must be to a considerable extent conjectural, it has seemed best 
to present both hypotheses. 


SIMA 


78 ‘THE ERECHTHEUM 


On the Acropolis are many fragments of a sima, both with and without lions’ heads 
(PLaTE XVII, 3; Fig. 50), which, in view of the following considerations, may properly 
be assigned to the sides and gables of the Erechtheum. On the sides of a building the angle 
between the lowest fascia of the sima and its bed is not the same at the corners as elsewhere, 
for at the corners the bed has the inclination of the gable, but elsewhere the inclination of 
the horizontal cornice.1_ Moreover, if the lowest fascia of the sima on the gable is vertical, 
it will probably remain so as it turns the corner and is continued on the horizontal sima. 
This permits the angle of the latter’s bed to be determined. Among the fragments al- 
ready mentioned, a sima from a gable has such a vertical fascia, and experiment shows 


Figure 50. LION’S HEAD FROM SIMA OF MAIN BUILDING 


that for it, and also for the corresponding horizontal sima, the angle of the base agrees with 
that required at the corners and along the sides of the Erechtheum. The fragments are 
sufficiently preserved to permit the following measurements: the axial distance of the lions’ 
heads, the distance from the axis of a lion’s head to the joint, and the distance on the lowest 
fascia from the corner to the nearest lion’s head; so that the length of the ordinary blocks 
and of those at the angles can be determined as 1.348 m. and 0.674 m. respectively (PLATES 
XVI, XVIII). That these dimensions are appropriate for the sima of the Erechtheum is 
evident from the fact that sixteen of the long blocks and the two shorter angle blocks have 
a total length of 22.916 m., or within 0.01 m. of the length of the sima on the south side of 
the Erechtheum as calculated from the known length of the horizontal cornice. This close 
agreement in the results obtained by calculation and by measurement, when combined with 
the evidence from the angle of the bed and with the suitable height of the fragments, war- 
rants the belief that the simas of the Erechtheum, as drawn in the orders of the main 


1 See PLates XX, 3, and XVIII, at top. In the Erechtheum the gable has an inclination of about 1: 4; the hori- 
zontal cornice, an average of 1: 28. 


DESCRIPTION 79 


building (PLares XVI, XVIII), have been correctly identified.! Although these fragments, 
by reason of their poor execution, seem to belong to the Roman repairs,” they probably 
reproduce the dimensions and essential form of the original Greek sima. As the largest 
fragment of the cornice from the side walls is Roman, we should expect to find a Roman 
sima. 

On the top of the sima are cuttings for antefixes over each joint and midway between 
the lions’ heads. This shows that the length of a block of the sima corresponds to the width 
of two flat tiles of the roof, plus twice the interval between them. Moreover, in view of the 
small variation in the width of the ridge tiles used on the Acropolis of Athens, the total 
distance from eaves to ridge to be covered by n rows of tiles can be determined within a few 
centimetres. With these two facts in mind all the flat roof tiles of marble now remaining on 
the Acropolis and its slopes were examined, with the following results. The length and 
breadth of four types could be directly measured and the length alone of two other types. 
Of the four types first mentioned, one belongs on the Parthenon, another on the Propylaea,’ 
and a third fulfills the conditions imposed by the main roof of the Erechtheum (PLATE 
XVII, 1). On this main roof there were eight rows of tiles between eaves and ridge, and 
thirty-two, in addition to the two gable simas, from one end to the other of the building.‘ 
Of the cover tiles on the Acropolis complete specimens of four distinct types are preserved. 
That which has been assigned to the main roof of the Erechtheum is the one which has the 
same length as the flat tiles of the roof (neglecting the overlap in both cases) and in width 
corresponds with the marks of weathering on the flat tiles (PLATE XVII, 2). Of two types 
of ridge tile found on the Acropolis, the one which has the same overlap on the flat tiles that 
one flat tile has on another has been tentatively assigned to the Erechtheum (PLATE 
XXIV, 8). From four types of ridge cover tile on the Acropolis that one was selected for the 
Erechtheum which had the same width as the ordinary cover tile (PLaTtm XXIV, 7). The 
flat and cover tiles are represented by specimens of the best Greek workmanship, as well as 
by those dating from the time of subsequent repairs on the building. The ridge tile is 
known only from a single example so weathered that its original technique cannot be made 
out. The ridge cover tile shows good Roman work. 

The attribution of the antefixes (PLatmes XVI, XVIII) is based on their fitting the cut- 
tings in the top of the sima and also its rear profile. The examples preserved show by 
their number that they come from an important building. The method of attachment is 
not uniform and the workmanship also varies widely, but all that have been discovered 
probably belong to repairs made in Roman times. 


1 The assignment to the Erechtheum is rendered even more probable by the fact that several fragments of this 
sima have been found in the rubble foundation of the north aisle wall of the church. 

2 On the renewal of simas, ef. Olympia, II, pp. 8, 22. 

3 For the identification of these types see Penrose, Ath. Arch., pls. XVII, XXXIV; Bohn, Propylaeen, p. 20. 

4 For the identification of the tiles of the North Portico, see p. 97. The buildings to which the other types belonged 
are unidentified. 


TILES 


ANTEFIXES 


ACROTERIA 


COLUMNS 


80 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Diligent search on the Acropolis has not been rewarded by the discovery of any frag- 
ments which can be referred to the central or corner acroteria of the Erechtheum. The 
corner block of the sima shows that in later classical times the acroteria of the angles could 
not have been of any great size, as there is no trace of any platform, such as is found else- 
where and would have been needed for their support.’ 


VIII. Tue Nortrs Portico 


On the front of the portico the spacing of the columns shows an exceptional departure from 
normal Greek methods, in that the intercolumniation in the centre is slightly narrower than 
that on either side.? This is due to the fact that regularity in the position of the columns is 
here subordinated to regularity in the construction of the marble ceiling. The two inter- 
mediate columns are placed beneath alternate beams of the ceiling (PLatr I; Fig. 57), the 
axis of each capital coinciding with that of the beam above, while in the corner columns 
the axis of the capital coincides with that of the epistyle on the sides. Since, however, the 
beams are narrower than the epistyle, the axial distance between the capitals is less in the 
central space than at the sides by one-half the difference between the width of the epistyle 
(0.766 m.) and that of the beams (0.656 m.), or by 0.055 m. The supports of the epistyle 
on the sides of the portico are so arranged that the average width of the free space between 
the two columns is about 0.05 m. less than that between the central column and the adja- 
cent anta. 

The corner columns leaned inward on the diagonal of the portico,* the northeast column, 
which is intact, having its axis inclined 0.018 m. to the west and south. The axes of the 
intermediate columns of the north front, in addition to their southward inclination, which 
is the same as that of the corner columns, since the axes of their capitals also coincide with 
the axis of the architrave, lean 0.0075 m. toward the middle point of the north front of the 
portico. This inclination has been determined by comparison of the axial distances of the 
capitals, as calculated from the beams of the ceiling, with those of the bases, and not by 
plumbing, as the western of these two columns has been reconstructed. The rear column 
on the east side of the portico, beside inclining inward to keep the axis of the capital beneath 
the axis of the epistyle, has an inclination of 0.005 m. to the south. The rear column on the 
west side is now vertical, but it has been reconstructed. The inclination is effected by 
making perpendicular to the axis of the columns all the joints except those in the base and 
immediately below the capital, which are horizontal. 

The total height of the columns is 7.635 m. The heights of the several parts, which are 

1 See Penrose, Ath. Arch., pls. XVII, XX XI. For a possible reference to the angle acroteria, cf. Callimachus, 
Frg. 122. A restoration is given in J.-M., Atlas, pls. XX VII, XXVIII. 

2 The irregularity was noted by Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. II, pl. III, and also by Inwood, ed. maj., Book XXII, 
p. 103, who calls attention to a similar irregularity in the Ionic temple on the Ilissus, Stuart and Revett, I, Ch. I, 


Dietis 
’ Cf. Penrose, Ath. Arch., pl. XIV, ‘Inclination of shaft 0.033 in 22.0 feet.” 


DESCRIPTION 81 
practically the same in all the columns, are as follows: stylobate to joint in base (below the 
upper torus) 0.239 m. ; six drums, respectively 0.793 m., 0.807 m., 1.501 m., 1.507 m., 1.273 m., 


ARCHITRAVE 


SOINT 
% NECKING 


7,273 RO: 
Q S 
aes 
N rN 

Xx 
ag! My, 


' 
' 
' 
1 
! 
' 
' 
' 
' 
! 
! 
' 
' 
' 
' 
‘ 
' 
' 
“4 1 
‘ 
' 
! 
' 
' 
‘ 
' 
i) 
' 
' 
i) 
' 
1 
' 


nw 
% 
gS 
% 
bho . 
ws = 
a AS TNA 0S 9H 0/7 S 


750/ 
ee ie eek Oa TEU Mae (aEEe Gy. 


| IN 
CC 
© \) 
& N 
8 
0 ig the Ls) 
Vt D= 8084 \ 
‘ 1 \ 
¥) ‘ 
2) : 
. Mu 7 
* oO @ 2 3 CM: 


Ficure 51. NORTH PORTICO: CURVE OF ENTASIS OF COLUMNS 


1.181 m. (the last drum includes the anthemion and the egg-and-dart moulding below the 
guilloche) ; capital 0.334 m. (Fig. 51). 

The columns, unlike those of the East Portico, were given a delicate entasis.1 The 
grounds for this difference in treatment may be found partly in the greater height of the 
columns of the North Portico, and partly in the wider intercolumniations, because of which 
the columns both actually and relatively bore a much greater weight than those of the 


1 “The most delicate curve which has ever been applied to any architectural line for the purpose of pleasing the 
eye is that probably which forms the entasis of the columns of the Erechtheum,” Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 33. 


CAPITALS 


82 THE ERECHTHEUM 


East Portico; it was, therefore, desirable to increase their apparent strength, and this was 
accomplished by the addition of an entasis. The entasis in terms of the length of the shaft 
is 1:1080; in terms of the lower diameter is 1:134; and in terms of the semi-diminution is 
1:9. The maximum entasis is 0.0059 m., and falls at a point 3.176 m. above the stylobate. 
Upon investigation the curve of the entasis proved to approximate very closely to that 
formed by two hyperbolas, almost identical in equation, having a common centre and tan- 
gent to each other at the maximum entasis (Fig. 51);1 the greatest divergency from the 
measured curve occurs at the point 7 in Figure 51, and amounts to 0.008 in. or 0.0002 m.? In 
no case is the curve vertical; it starts at the very bottom with an inward inclination (Fig. 51). 

The direction of the guilloche on the upper torus of three of the bases is to the right and 
on the other three to the left in regular alternation, commencing with the base of the south- 
ern column on the east side. The pattern also varies somewhat, since on the corner columns 
the centre of the ‘‘ribbon” is concave, while on the others it is convex (PLATES XXII, B, 
XXX, 7, 4, B, XX XVII, 3, 4). On the antae® the guilloche has the same pattern as on the 
corner columns, while in direction it is symmetrical about the angles as well as about the 
axis of the face (PLatms XXIII, XX XVII, 5).+ 

In the columns of the East Portico, there is below the anthemion of the necking a bead- 
and-reel, but in those of the North Portico this is replaced by a flat fillet so low in its pro- 
jection that it could not have been designed for a similar decoration (PLaTEs XVI, XXII, 
XXX, 8, XXXVI, 4; Figs. 52, 137). The reeding about the top of each flute in the columns 
of the North Portico is a refinement not found elsewhere in the building (Figs. 52, 137). 

The eyes of the volutes of the capitals of the columns are sunk in order to receive, as 
filling, a disc 0.066 m. in diameter, not improbably of gilded bronze (Fig. 52).° There are 
no holes for fastening the discs, which must, therefore, have been either driven or cemented 
into place. The surface of the sinking is slightly roughened. 

In three distinct places on the capitals of the North Portico are series of small drilled 
holes, which are completely lacking both in the capitals of the East Portico and in the 
half-capitals of the West Facade. 

To begin with the set which is at once the easiest to explain and the best preserved: on 
the sides of each capital, in the channels of the bolsters, are three holes placed symmetrically, 
and in most of these still remain bronze pins forking to right and left (PLatm XXII; Fig. 53), 


1 In the figure the horizontal distances are magnified eighty times as compared with the vertical heights. The 
word CENTRE denotes the common centre of the two hyperbolas. 

2 In the study of this entasis the dimensions given by Penrose (Ath. Arch., pp. 33, 41; pl. XIV) were verified 
and proved exceedingly accurate; they were, therefore, used throughout the investigation. Penrose, however, found 
the closest approximation to the measured entasis in a single hyperbola, in which the greatest divergency (at 5, 
Fig. 51) amounts to 0.0144 inches or 0.00037 m. In addition to the less accurate approximation this curve is much 
more difficult to plot than the one given in Figure 51, which has also the advantage of permitting the maximum en- 
tasis to be placed at any desired height. For a detailed discussion of the methods of determining entasis, see G. P. 
Stevens, ‘Entasis of Roman Columns,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, IV, 1924, pp. 121-152. 

* To avoid awkward circumlocution the pier at the southwest corner is treated as an anta in this description. 

+ A slight difference between the antae is observable in the working of the guilloche on the centre of the north face. 

5 See above, p. 22, and Ch. IV, Inscription XVII, col. 1, Il. 41-43. 


Reesoegeaceenortttiny, 


Figure 52. NORTH PORTICO: WEST HALF OF CAPITAL, THIRD COLUMN FROM WEST 


Ficure 53. 


NORTH PORTICO: 


ON NORTH SIDE 


INNER ANGLE OF CAPITAL OF COLUMN AT NORTHWEST CORNER 


[ 83 ] 


84 THE ERECHTHEUM 


which probably secured garlands or other decorations at festivals. As no holes are found 
on the antae, though they are present on the bolsters opposite the antae, the decorations 
seem to have hung vertically from each column rather than to have stretched from column 
to column. 

The second set of holes occurs on the front and rear of each capital in the groove! which, 
starting from the small triangular space between the guilloche and the volutes, follows the 
spiral of the latter, and with gradually diminishing width and depth finally disappears in 
the eye of the volute. In each of these grooves are four or five holes placed without regard 
to symmetry or to any system of arrangement that can be discovered. Occasionally there 
are two holes close together in the direction of the groove. The remains of bronze pins, 
broken off close to the surface of the marble, are to be seen in a number of instances. In- 
wood states 2 that the pins in these holes were forked like the others, which might imply 
that they served the same purpose. But in view of the lack of symmetry in the arrange- 
ment of the holes, their number, and their proximity to one another, this is hardly prob- 
able, as a glance at Inwood’s plate will show. It seems quite possible that in respect to 
this forking there has been a confusion between the two sets of holes, respectively in the 
grooves and on the bolsters, or else that the original shape of the pins in the grooves was 
inferred from the better preserved pins in the bolsters. It is certainly hard to understand 
why since 1819 the forked pins should have disappeared from the grooves on both in- 
terior and exterior of the portico, and yet still be so relatively well preserved on the bol- 
sters.’ If, however, the pins in these holes were not to sustain decorations, the alternative 
seems to be the explanation apparently first suggested by William Kinnard,‘ and since 
adopted by other writers, that they secured a strip of metal, which followed the groove 
from beginning to end and was terminated, perhaps, by a small palmette in the triangular 
space already mentioned. In at least one of the capitals, there is a change of color on the 
marble here, which may be due to the former presence of such a palmette, although this 
explanation is far from certain. On the other hand, Puchstein has shown ® that there is a 
type of Ionic capital, represented by other examples as well as those from the Erechtheum, 


1 On the best preserved capital of the North Portico (the third from the west on the front), the groove in the 
east volute on the outer face has the following width and depth, as measured at regular intervals, starting vertically 
above the eye (the interval between the first two points is a quarter revolution, between each of the others a half 
revolution): 

Widthon ss... Sy epee ee eeaee 0.015 0.0125 0.011 0.008 0 
Dept: Fi. ccet vk pee eae ce 0.0185 0.016 0.02 0.014 0 

2 Inwood, ed. min., p. 5; on pl. IV, forked pins, indicated by dotted lines, are shown irregularly in the volute. 

3 A note of J. L. Wolfe (App. A, XVII) reads ‘‘ Bronze nails seen in the whole circuit of channel between volutes 
as well as in eye and deep sunk angle.” He does not refer to these nails in his note-book, where he states expressly 
that there were forked pins in the guilloche as well as in the bolsters (App. A, XVII). 

4 W. Kinnard, Stuart and Revett,? II, p. 73, note a, and IV, p. 17, note f. See also E. Metzger, Kunstblatt, 1833, No. 
24, p.95; Tétaz, R. Arch., VIII, 1, 1851, p. 93; Beulé, II, p. 271. J.-J. Hittorff, Restitution du Temple d’Empédocle a 
Sélinonte, pl. XI, fig. 1, gives a colored restoration of this capital with the bronze strip inserted. J. L. Wolfe (App. A, 
XVII) thought ‘the glass and gilt ornaments about it must have been very injurious to the effect — filling up the 
channels between the volutes, which now give distinction to them.” 

5 Das Ionische Capitell (47tes Berl. Winckelmannsprogramm), p. 25. 


DESCRIPTION 85 


which is characterized by this sharply cut groove following the spiral of the volute, but 
which in only one other instance has preserved any evidence of an inserted strip of metal.! 
The groove, in fact, while well designed for marking the revolutions of the spiral, with its 
shadow that constantly increases in intensity as the cutting deepens and widens, is poorly 
adapted for the reception of a strip of metal, owing to this very change in depth, which in- 
creases the labor of forming the strip of the proper thickness, and offers no adequate attach- 
ment as it starts from the eye. Consequently, although it seems necessary to admit the 
probable existence of such a strip of metal, through lack of any more reasonable explanation 
for the holes under discussion, it may be permissible to doubt whether the capital was 
designed with the intention of receiving any such decoration. 

The holes forming the third series are found only on the inner face of the capitals, drilled 
vertically in the top of the guilloche, one on each side of the axis of the capital and 0.14 m. 
apart. They are 0.008 m. in diameter. They may be either brought into connection with 
hanging decorations like those on the bolsters,? or combined with the holes in the grooves of 
the volute, if the latter served to fasten a strip of metal. 

The guilloche was decorated with glass beads, all of which have now disappeared, though 
they seem to have been fairly well preserved in the early part of the last century. Colored 
drawings by Donaldson and Haller von Hallerstein, an outline by Inwood, and a note by 
Joseph Wolfe suggest by their minor discrepancies that the ornamentation was not the 
same on all the columns, or else that the darker shades were not easily distinguished. In 


? At Delphi an Ionic capital, copied from the Erechtheum, has similar pin holes in the deep groove (Pomtow, 
Beitrdge zur Topographie von Delphi, pl. VII, 12), while in another capital (Courby, Fouilles de Delphes, II, 1, figs. 
43, 44) the groove is filled by a marble reeding terminating in a palmette. Both capitals belong to votive monuments 
of the third century B.c. (Bourguet, Ruines de Delphes, p. 148; Replat, B. C. H., XLVI, 1922, pp. 435 ff.). 

2 Perhaps the most probable view, if ‘‘Cassas,’”’ Haller, Wolfe, and Inwood are right in saying that they contained 
forked pins. ‘‘Cassas”’ (Drawings for Choiseul-Gouffier, Louvre, p. 142) draws, in the guilloche of the corner capital, 
forked pins like those in the bolsters, and in a marginal note suggests they were to support garlands. Haller von Haller- 
stein (MSS, Strasbourg, Box III, Vol. 8, p. 237) draws two pins in the guilloche between the volutes, and adds as a 
note ‘‘Crochets de fer dont il y a deux au dessus de |’ovole entre les volutes des Chapiteaux. Peut-étre servoient-ils 
pour y attacher les festons ou draperies avec les quels on ornoit le Temple pendant quelque cérémonie extraordinaire.” 
J. L. Wolfe (App. A, XVII) mentions ‘‘bent nails on top of plat-band and in every other channel on the baluster side 
of Cap.”’ Inwood, pl. IV, draws forked pins in the guilloche as well as in the volutes. 

3 KE. D. Clarke, Travels, Pt. 2, Vol. III, p. 797, note (see App. A, XV), says that Lusieri was the first to detect 
this decoration. It is, however, noticed by Locatelli (see App. A, VII, A), and the volume of drawings in the Louvre, 
attributed to Cassas, and probably made about 1786 or a little later, p. 142, contains the following note concerning 
a corner capital of the North Portico: “Les yeux des entrelacs qui en dehors sont creux, sont remplies dans |’intérieur 
de petites boules de verre, bleu et jaune.”’ It is also mentioned by J.-G. Legrand, Gal. ant., I, p. 74 (App. A, XIV, 
13): “On y avoit poussé cette recherche jusqu’ 4 incruster des bronzes et des émaux coloriés dans I’oeil de la volute 
et dans les entrelas du chapiteau qui répondent 4 la hauteur de cet oeil.’”’? Legrand’s information almost. certainly 
came from Fauvel, who had probably discovered the beads for himself. Legrand’s volume appeared in 1806. Clarke 
was in Athens in 1801, but his book was not published until 1814. 

4 T. L. Donaldson, drawing, British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, ‘‘ Disposition of the 
coloured glass beads in the interlacing ornament in the capitals of the tetrastyle portico. The base was ornamented in 
the same manner.” Cf. Transactions, R. 1. B. A., 1, Pt. 2, 1842, p. 107, and plate: ‘The Secretary [Donaldson] also sub- 
mitted to the Committee various portions of glass eyes, which he had taken from the torus between the volutes of the 
Ionic columns of the Triple Temple in the Acropolis of Athens. They are of four different colours, and were arranged 
in the order shown on the plate.’”’? This shows,the upper and lower rows of alternate blue and red, and the centre 
row of yellow and purple. Haller von Hallerstein (MSS, Strasbourg, Box III, Vol. 8, p. 236) says: “Dans le premier 


ANTAE 


EPISTYLE 


86 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the upper and lower rows were the same two colors in alternation and there were two con- 
trasting colors in the middle row. The statement made on the drawing in the British 


Museum and sometimes in print that the 
bases of the columns were decorated in the 
same manner is manifestly incorrect. 

The faces of the antae are without entasis 
and follow the inclination of the adjacent 
wall.2, The mouldings on the bases of the antae 
have the same height as those at the base of 
the north wall outside of the portico,® but a 
somewhat greater projection. They are, how- 
ever, lower and project less than the mould- 
ings on the bases of the columns (PLATE 
XXX? DO) 

The blocks of the epistyle were secured to 
the tops of the capitals of the columns by two 
dowels at each joint, and were mitred over 
the corner columns in the manner shown in 
PLATE XXIV, 2. The dowels show that at the 
northwest corner the block on the west was 
placed before the block on the north, but other- 
wise data are lacking as to the order in which 
this course was laid. At the southeast corner 
the epistyle forms a peculiar and irrational 
junction with the north wall (Fig. 54), since in 
the case of the two upper fasciae no allowance 
was made for the change in the surface of the 
wall produced by the final dressing. On the 
south side of the portico the blocks of the 
epistyle extended through the wall, but in 


et troisiéme rang est la couleur de ces pierres bleu et noir, 
dans le second rang jaune et pourpre.”’ Inwood (ed. min., 
p. 5, pl. IV) calls the first and third rows black and light 
blue; the second yellow and dark blue. Wolfe (App. A, 


—, 
qsaed 
es aan 


Figure 54. NORTH PORTICO: ABUTMENT OF EAST 
ARCHITRAVE AGAINST NORTH WALL OF 
MAIN BUILDING: ISOMETRIC 
To show more clearly the relation the architrave 
is not drawn in contact with the wall 


XVII) writes: “In the eyes of Plat-band glass eyes remain composed of opaque vitreous substances — of bright col- 
ours — yellow, blue and purple. In one instance two of these eyes in angle.” Tétaz, Mémoire explicatif (MS., Bibl. 
Ke. B.-A.), p. 58, reports: “‘ Deux [petits cylindres d’émail] sont encore en place, l’un bleu, l’autre vert.” Tétaz was in 
Athens in 1847 and 1848. He seems to have been the last to see any beads in place. Those brought to London by 


Donaldson have disappeared. 


1 As, for example, by J. Woods, Letters of an Architect, II, p. 256; Prokesch von Osten, II, p. 409. 


2 On the inclination of the north wall, see p. 48. 


3 Within the portico this course is without mouldings. 


* For differences in the treatment of the anthemion on different sides of the anta capitals and on the epicranitis 


ranging with them, see Ch. II, pp. 203 ff. 


DESCRIPTION 87 


the interior they were cut down to the height of a single wall course. The space behind the 
upper part of the epistyle and the ceiling was filled by two courses of sheathing, each the 
height of a wall course (p. 50; Puarrs IX, XI; Figs. 32, 55). 

The construction of the ceiling preceded the setting of the frieze, otherwise the huge 
marble beams, 6.65 m. long, could not have been fastened to the epistyle, as they were, by 
two dowels at each end. The central beam, which was inserted during the Roman repairs 
to replace one that had been broken, was not dowelled (PLate VIII, 4).! All the beams 
were cut down 0.136 m. at the north end, and the westernmost beam at the south end also, 
in order that they might range with the frieze and furnish a level bed for the cornice (PLATE 
XXIV, 1); at the south, where all except the westernmost were inserted in the north wall of 
the building, the cutting was much less, only 0.08 m., to correspond with a joint in the wall, 
so that, as has been said, epistyle and beams together might be equal to three courses of the 
wall as seen from within (Figs. 32, 55). 

The interbeams have, of course, the same profile as the beams themselves. Dowels on 
their east sides, to hold them to the epistyle, show that the laying of the ceiling beams and 
of the blocks between them began at the west and proceeded toward the east. On the south 
side of the portico the tops of the interbeams range with the ceiling beams as cut down 
(PLatTE X; Figs. 32, 55); on the north the interbeams were lower, having the height of 
the rabbets which were cut in the beams to give a bearing on either side to the blocks con- 
taining the coffers. As these rabbets had been cut to the ends of the beams, that is, beyond 
the bearing of the coffer blocks, the interbeams were naturally given the same height, in 
order to facilitate clamping them to the beams (PLatE XXIV, 1, 3). On the south side, 
where the beams and interbeams formed part of the wall, this precaution was evidently 
judged unnecessary.’ 

On the north side of the portico, in order that no empty space should be left between 
the interbeams and the cornice, slabs of marble, 0.074 m. to 0.079 m. in thicknéss, were 
laid on top of the former, and held sufficiently by the stones about them to render clamps 
unnecessary (PLATE XXIV, 3, and perspective). One of these slabs has been preserved, 
and shows that dowels extending into the blocks of the cornice bound these two courses 
together. 

The fact that the cornice of the portico and the first course (epicranitis, p. 51) of the 
north wall of the temple rest in part on the blocks containing the coffers, proves that the 
ceiling was completed before anything at a higher level was put in place (Piats VIII, 4). 

Except in the second row from the east (PLates I, VIII, 4; Fig. 56) there are two coffers 


1 This beam in addition to lacking the usual dowels at the ends is not quite so high above the tops of the coffer 
blocks, the finish given to the southern end is not that of the other beams (PLATE XJ), and there are slight differences 
in the carving of the mouldings. 

2 On this wall the interbeam west of the Roman beam is also Roman. The egg-and-dart is not symmetrical in 
turning the corner, as it is on the Greek interbeams; the surface is well finished only in a narrow band around the 
edges instead of throughout; and the astragalus at the top has a greater projection than elsewhere. 


CEILING 


Figure 55. NORTH PORTICO: EAST SIDE OF ROOF FROM SOUTH, 
MODERN RAFTERS PARTIALLY LAID 


Ficure 56. NORTH PORTICO: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CEILING, FROM ABOVE ' 


[ 88 J 


DESCRIPTION 89 


to each block,’ and shift holes — so far as an examination was possible — show that in each 
row the blocks were laid beginning at the south and proceeding northward. The blocks are 
cut on top to follow roughly the shape of the coffers below (PLatrs VIII, XXIV; Fig. 56), 
in order to reduce the weight which rested on the beams of the ceiling. Only those at the 
ends of each row are fastened to the beams. The joints of the blocks did not fall on the 
axis between the coffers, but at the side of one of the two projecting bead-and-reel mouldings, 
in which position they were almost invisible from below (PLatTE XXIII; Fig. 57), and did 
not interfere with the painted maeander.? 

Of this maeander, in the encaustic technique, which framed every coffer, enough is 
preserved to render possible the exact determination of the pattern and especially of the 
way in which the corners were turned (PLATE XXIII; Fig. 584). The pattern of the painted 
egg-and-dart on the mouldings of the coffers can also be reproduced exactly (Fig. 588).* 
Neither here nor elsewhere in the temple is it now possible to determine the original colors. 
A hole in the centre of each coffer evidently received a bolt (Fig. 57), to secure an ornament 
of marble (p. 409), or possibly of metal, which, as the ground of the coffers is left somewhat 
rough, was apparently of considerable size, and probably occupied almost the entire rec- 
tangle. In the upper side of each coffer a slot in connection with the hole (PLATE XXIII, 
centre; Fig. 56) ensured a fixed position in the coffer for this decoration. 

In rebuilding the portico in 1903, the Greek architect Balanos discovered the previous 
existence of an hitherto unsuspected opening extending through ceiling and roof at the 
south end of the second row of coffers from the east (Fig. 57).4 The two southernmost 
coffers of this row are omitted and the next coffer has a broader frame than usual on its 
south side.® The upper surface of this frame and that of the two beams on either side of the 
omitted coffers are dressed down and the rabbets in the beams filled with pieces of marble, 
clamped in place — all in order to furnish a bed for the upright blocks which formed the 
sides of the opening (Puatss III, VII, VIII, 4, [X, XXIV; Figs. 55, 59). The blocks from 
the south and west sides have been found and replaced; those now on the east and north 
sides are modern,° but the original slabs have left abundant traces of their former existence 
in the carefully dressed beds, clamp cuttings, and weather marks. 


1 Durm, Baukunst der Griechen,? fig. 153, is incorrect in showing four coffers in each block; between each pair of 
beams is one row, not two, of coffers. Id., ibid., fig. 375, and in Constructive u. polychrome Details der gr. Baukunst, 
pl. VII, gives the coffers correctly as seen from below. 

2 Here, too, Roman repairs can be traced. Probably the entire row of coffers east of the central (Roman) beam, 
the two southern coffers in the first row west of this beam, and two, cut in a peculiar fashion, farther north in the 
second row are due to the restorers (PLatTe VIII, 4). The inferior workmanship, particularly as displayed on the 
upper surface of the stones, is the chief reason for assigning them to the Roman period. 

3 In the mouldings, no less than in the rendering of the maeander, the colored plate, Durm, Baukunst der Griechen,’ 
p. 252, is inaccurate. 

4 The discovery was announced and its significance briefly discussed by Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XXVIII, 1903, 
pp. 467-468. 

5 The original block is in the British Museum (Sculpture, I, p. 2388, No. 416). The block now in the ceiling is 
the only one which in the recent restoration it was necessary to make entirely anew. 

6 These modern blocks are not shown in the plates. 


Figure 57. NORTH PORTICO: EAST PORTION OF CEILING, FROM BELOW (MARCH 26, 1909) 


[90 ] 


DESCRIPTION 


The two original blocks have cuttings in the upper surface, evidently once connected 
with a wooden construction. The south stone is cut to receive a narrow rafter. On the west 
stone the cutting is in the same plane as the upper surface of the block in the east half of the 
pediment and seems intended to hold a wooden cross-piece (Fig. 63). The tops of both 
stones are broken where they project above these cuttings, but they have been so restored 
in PLATE XXIV as to align with the plane of the top of the raking cornice. On the bottom 
of the stone from the south side is a slot running through from side to side (PLatss VII, 
XXIV; Fig. 59). Since the centre of gravity, as may be determined by both mathematical 


YL VLA 


Y IZZIIIEIZEZIZIZIL YALL 
g y Z| OM 

Bey 
CLL 


Y 
Gas 
ao G4 

“2, WL, AG WZ 
GY, 0 OYE 
EF 
Gu Y 
bd 


VLA 


“74 EG | 
AY Azz 


% - 
VAL} 


en Ve 
ZA 
Z LLL 


Y 
g p 
Z 


Gated 
GYG V 
Git, 


bit, 
7 


YMiGy 
YAL 
Gili 


Figure 58. NORTH PORTICO: PAINTED ORNAMENTS OF CEILING. 
(A) MAEANDER SURROUNDING COFFERS. (B) EGG-AND-DART ON 
MOULDINGS OF COFFERS 


and graphical calculation, lies directly over this slot, the latter was probably cut to hold a 
hoisting rope. It would be invisible from below after the stone was placed. The form of the 
roof tiles used about the opening is unknown, but a probable arrangement has been restored 


in Figure 63. 


A scratch line on the top of the epistyle marks the position of the face of the frieze, which 
was set 0.013 m. behind the line of the lowest fascia of the epistyle in order to increase the 
space available for the attached figures. The frieze has a batter of 0.005 m. (PLaTrE XXIII, 
at left). On the east and west sides of the portico the backing of the frieze, 0.45 m. thick, 
was a single stone, in order that the resemblance to the ceiling beams might be as close as 


possible. The stone on the east side is still intact (Fig. 57). 


FRIEZE 


CORNICE 


92 THE ERECHTHEUM 


On the same side the cornice has also remained 7n situ; 1 elsewhere it has now been re- 
placed, with but a small piece of new material on the west side (PLatms IV, VIII, 4). On 
the north side a shift hole shows that this course was laid from east to west. When in 
the course of the Roman repairs the cornice on this side was removed and later replaced, the 
first and second blocks west of that on the east corner were interchanged in position. In the 
reconstruction of 1903 they were given their original order, as determined by the correspond- 
ence of the cuttings for 4 clamps. The Roman restorers, however, must have inserted 


Figure 59. NORTH PORTICO: OPENING IN CEILING AND ROOF 


some new material, for on the Acropolis are two blocks (Fig. 60)? which, judging from the 
dimensions, belong to the North Portico, and from the horizontal upper surface, were once 
under the pediment. Both are Greek blocks, but cuttings for p= clamps and a Roman lewis 
hole show that they were re-used in the later repairs. Neither the original Greek nor the later 
Roman position * can now be ascertained with certainty. Each stone has on the bottom the 
rust marks of a ek clamp, which probably held a beam to the frieze. As no new material 
was used here in the recent reconstruction, it would seem that some old Greek blocks dis- 
carded by the Romans have now been replaced along with some of the new Roman stones. 

1 The block next to the south end is horizontal on top and rough, as if a stone thinner than usual had been em- 
ployed. The end block has no 4 cuttings, but simple slots, such as are found at two or three other places in the 
ae 1924 the block on the left lay at the northwest corner of the foundation of the Old Temple; the block on the 
right was near the wall of the Acropolis, northeast of the East Portico of the Erechtheum. 

3 The stone on the right may have come from under the central tympanum block; the other possibly from under 


a western block, as a dressing on top, 0.52 m. wide, indicates that the stone above had a width of only 0.51 m., while 
that of the central stone is 0.60 m. 


DESCRIPTION 93 


The face of the cornice is generally vertical, but at the north end of the east side it has 
an inclination, upward and forward, of 0.0025 m. The curve of the soffit of the cornice is a 
parabola, the focus of which is on the horizontal line drawn through the bottom of the drip, 


16096 


DY aes 
ROMAN LEWIS 


eae 
~ 
SN 


SSS 
3 


BOTTOM BOTTOM 


Figure 60. NORTH PORTICO: GREEK CORNICE BLOCKS, USED BY ROMANS, BUT NOT REPLACED IN 1903 
The carved mouldings are not indicated 


and 0.02 m. (one dactyl) from its inner edge (Fig. 61).1. The inclination of the axis down- 
ward and inward is slightly less than one-sixth of a right angle (Fig. 61).? 
Of the tympanum only the central block and the one next to it on the east are ancient. TYMPANUM 


1 The problem presented in the construction of this curve is that of passing a parabola, the focus of which is given, 
through two points, a and B (Fig. 61). The directrix is the tangent to the two circles described from a and B as 
centres with radii equal to the respective distances of these points from the focus. A line drawn through the focus and 
perpendicular to the directrix gives the axis. From these data the curve itself is readily constructed according to either 
of the methods indicated in Figures 61 and 62. The parabola can be varied by changing the distance of the focus 
from the point A along the horizontal line. When the method shown in Figure 62 is used in laying out the curve of a 
stylobate, the uneven distances, 1, 3, 5, 7, etc., are perhaps the scamilli impares (small steps the heights of which are 
denoted by successive odd numbers) mentioned by Vitruvius (III, 4, 5; IV, 5, 9). For a discussion of this question see 
G. P. Stevens, ‘Entasis of Roman Columns,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, IV, 1924, pp. 149-150. 

2 Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 51 (cf. pl. XIX, 13) gives the curve of the soffit of the cornice from the main building, 
and adds in a note “that of the northern portico scarcely differs from this.” 

3 Early drawings by Gell (Fig. 222), Smirke (Puats LI, 3), and G. L. Taylor (Piare LI, 2) show that the western 
part of the pediment had disappeared as early as 1800. According to Kinnard (Stuart and Revett,? II, p. 72, note c) 
in 1825 “the tympanum of the tetrastyle portico remains, and indicates the rise of the pediment. It is of white marble, 
and consists of three slabs having two vertical joints.’ Curiously enough Dodwell (Tour, I, p. 348), Wilkins (Atheni- 
ensia, p. 147), and Prokesch von Osten (II, 409) state that the tympanum is of the dark Eleusinian limestone. 


RAKING 
CORNICE 


94 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The presence of cuttings for | and m= clamps shows that both are the original Greek 
blocks replaced during the Roman repairs. The face of the tympanum is set slightly for- 
ward from the face of the frieze and in line with the lowest fascia of the 
epistyle. The height is 1.094 m., and the length 8.75 m.; with the raking 
cornice added, the height is 1.345 m. and the length over all, 10.795 m. 
/ The inclination is in the ratio of 1:4, the same as that on the main 
[. building. 
[iv A considerable number of fragments of the raking cornice are pre- 
ty served, all of Greek workmanship, but with cuttings for m= as well 
as = clamps, indicating that they were re-used in Ro- 
pie man repairs. On none is the bed moulding cut into the 
Se oe: leaf-and-tongue ornament, but 
faint traces of painted decoration 
on this moulding suggest the pre- 
sence in color of the same pattern 


as was carved on the bed mould- 
ings of the horizontal cornice. The 
beginning of the raking cornice is 
worked on the corner block of the 
horizontal cornice, and its width, 
given by a cutting for a T-dowel in the southeast corner of this block, has been restored 
in accordance with this indication (Puats VIII, 4). The first block of the raking cornice 
from the west side of the pediment is | 


' 

‘ 

' 

' 

' 

‘ 

' 

‘ 

' 

' 

' 

' 

—>r 
a 


Figure 61. NORTH PORTICO: GRAPHIC METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING 
THE PARABOLIC CURVE OF SOFFIT OF CORNICE 


preserved, and shows by the cutting 
of its bed that the tympanum came 
to a “feather edge” in the angle 
(PLATE XXIV), thus departing from 
the general practice in Greek con- 
struction. Three of the fragments 
preserved have joints which are not 
at right angles to the beds, but ver- 
tical to the horizon, when the blocks 
are placed in position. Two of them 
evidently belong at the apex of the 
pediment on the north side of the 


Figure 62. NORTH PORTICO: ANOTHER METHOD OF 
portico, and the third may be as- CONSTRUCTING THE CURVE OF THE SOFFIT OF THE 


signed to the south side of the por- CORNICE (S04 MEE 
tico, at the point where the raking cornice ended against the west wall of the building. The 
other joints of this raking cornice are perpendicular to the bed. 


DESCRIPTION 95 


A cutting in the middle block of the tympanum, 0.65 m. high in the centre and 0.586 m. BEAMS AND 
at the sides, 0.515 m. wide, and 0.29 m. deep, fixes the position and the approximate dimen- *“*'"** 
sions of the ridge beam. In the drawings (PLATEs XXII, XXIII, XXIV; Fig. 63) it has 


x 
xs 
‘ 
Sw 
ES 
¢ 1 
¢ ie! f 
es = at = ry i & 
ff = ir) <a Tr) | oS re ! 
Ze EI EJ a d | | 
1 re —f re ei} in =) i 
ee er ey 


| 
= 
7 


aso 
ce 
Paar] 
Mit 


J 


sca 


Figur 63. NORTH PORTICO: PLAN AND SECTION OF ROOF: RESTORED 


been assumed, as seems reasonable, that the ridge beam filled the whole of the cutting made 
to receive it, so that the total thickness of the wooden construction in the roof was a little 
more than the height of the raking cornice, which is 0.244 m. (PLatrE XXII).! The width 


1 This excess in height is due to the fact that the tiles are 0.018 m. thinner than the raking sima (PLate XXII). 


SIMA 


96 THE ERECHTHEUM 


of the rafters is known to have been 0.28-0.29 m. (0.287 m. = 14 dactyls) from the cuttings 
for the ends in the horizontal cornice (PLaTEs VIII, 4, XXIII, XXIV; Figs. 56, 63). These 
cuttings also show the axial distance (0.85 m.), and the plane of the bottom of the rafters, 
which is the same as that of the bottom of the raking cornice. The height of the rafters is 
unknown, but cannot have varied much from that of the raking cornice, which is the height 
given them in the plates. Since these rafters have a longer unsupported span and are 
more widely spaced than those in the roof of the main building, it is natural that they 
should have a larger cross section. Their position is independent of the jointing of the tiles, 
as is shown by the cuttings for the dowels which held the latter to the horizontal cornice 
(PLaTE VIII, 4). The cross-pieces have been restored as having the same width (0.205 m. = 
10 dactyls), and approximately the same position beneath the horizontal joints of the tiles, 
as on the main building (Plates XVIII, XXIII). Their height, however, has been increased 
from three dactyls to four (0.082 m.). Such an increase may be reasonably assumed, since 
in the North Portico the cross-pieces sustained a heavier weight. Not only was their axial 
distance greater than on the main building, but, owing to the placing of the rafters with- 
out reference to the tiles, some of the rows of cover tiles fell between the rafters and so 
were in large part borne by the cross-pieces (Fig. 63).1 While a rafter is placed close to 
the wall on the south side of the roof, there is none in contact with the pediment on the 
north. Here, therefore, the cross-pieces must have been secured to the raking cornice. As 
on the main building (p. 77) they have been set in notches in both rafters and cornice. It 
seems probable that over the southern rafter the spaces between the ends of the cross- 
pieces and the wall were filled by small wedges to support the edge of the special tiles (Fig. 
63) which were used at the contact of the roof with the wall. 
Cuttings for dowels and pry holes in the upper surface of the cornice on the west side of 
the portico permit the average length of the blocks of the sima to be determined as 1.353 m.? 
No fragments of a special sima for the North Portico have been found, and as the cornice of 
the portico is identical with that of the main building, except in the height of the fascia, it is 
probable that the profile of the sima was also the same.’* On the east side of the portico the 
1 The subjoined table shows the difference in the areas, and thus, with a fair degree of accuracy, in the weights, 


which were supported by the ridge beams of the North Portico, the East Cella, and the central rooms of the temple. 
It will be seen that the ridge beam of the North Portico carried much the heavier load. The measurements are ap- 


proximate. Span of Length of rafter supported Area supported 
ridge beam by ridge beam by ridge beam 

Worth: Porticow.¢7.4nGins eee 5.94 m. 4.70 m. 28 sq. m. 

Bast @ella.s pce ta eee eee 7.30 m. 2.70 m. 19.70 sq. m. 

Central Rooms: vista tote hee 6.28 m. 3.30 m. 20.70 sq. m. 


2 The variations are shown in Puate VIII, 4. 

3 The fragment of a sima, published by Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 93 and vignette at top of p. 88, was recently in 
the Ephor’s office in the Acropolis Museum. Two other fragments of the same design were discovered in searching 
for it. The larger of these has no gutter behind but a flat bed on top, which is preserved for a width of over 0.30 m. 
This is against its belonging to the Erechtheum, as is also the failure of the axial distances of the elements of its 
decoration to agree with those used anywhere else in the building. Its workmanship is also inferior to that of the 
Greek ornament on the Erechtheum and is probably Roman. See also M. Schede, Antikes Traufleisten-Ornament (Zur 
Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes, 67), p. 27, note 1. 


DESCRIPTION 97 


dowels which held the sima in place have pour channels, pointing to a Roman restoration; 
these channels are lacking on the west side. A ragged weathering mark on the cornice of 
both east and west sides (the inner dotted lines on Puate VIII, 4) shows that this part of 
the building stood for a long time with the face of the sima broken and missing. 

The length only of the flat tiles belonging to the roof of the North Portico (PLATE 
XXIV, 5) was obtained by actual measurement, as but a single fragment could be identi- 
fied.! The width must, of course, be an exact divisor of the length of the sima block, an 
allowance of from 0.03—0.06 m. being made for the intervals between the tiles, and it is 
probable that, as on the main building, there were two tiles to each block. There were six 
rows between ridge and sima. The corresponding cover tiles (PLATE XXIV, 6) have the 
same width as those of the main building. The same ridge tiles and the same ridge cover 
tiles as on the main building have been drawn in the plates referring to the North Portico. 
No remains of these tiles have been identified, but as the conditions were the same on both 
roofs, there was no reason for any difference in the tiles. 

Antefixes of the same type as those on the main building, but a trifle larger have been 
assigned to the North Portico. There is no evidence as to the size or form of the acroteria, 
either at the corners or at the apex of the gable. The roof, as reconstructed from the data 
available, finishes below the cornice of the main building, against the frieze (PLATE XXIV). 

In addition to the great door which is described in the following section and which 
formed the principal entrance to the western rooms of the Erechtheum, the North Portico 
contains a small doorway opening into the precinct immediately west of the temple (PLATES 
II, VII, XI; Figs. 36, 37, 39). Its sill, like that of the great door, is formed by the course 
below the orthostates, and, as has been said (p. 59), ranges approximately with the middle 
step of the west wall and the sill of the west door (Puate XI; Fig. 37). Its dimensions 
agree very closely with those of the west door (PLatss IV, VII), and it is clear that the two 
doorways were intended to be of the same size. They are also alike in the entire absence of 
mouldings or other decoration on either jambs or lintel. The northwest doorway furnishes 
a somewhat striking example of indifference to exact correspondence between the courses on 
opposite sides of an opening, provided exact alignment is obtained at the top. Here the 
west orthostate is 0.042 m. lower, and the three plinths above it are respectively 0.021 m., 
0.010 m., and 0.011 m. higher than the same courses on the east (Phare VII). In the sill 
of the doorway are three pairs of sockets (PLATE II), but all are late, and apparently belong 
to Christian or even Turkish alterations. There are no indications of a door or gate here in 
Greek times.” 


1 In 1905 this fragment was lying on the roof of the small church of the Saviour on the north slope of the Acropolis 
below the Erechtheum. In 1913 it was no longer to be found. 
2 For the south side of this doorway see the section on the Pandroseum, pp. 120 ff. 


TILES 


ANTEFIXES 


THE SMALL 
DOOR 


JAMBS 


98 THE ERECHTHEUM 


IX. Tue Nortu Door 


[PLates XXV, XXXV, 3] 
Ir has long been recognized ! that the present inner jambs and lintel lining of the North 
Door are relatively late additions, not earlier, in fact, than the transformation of the temple 
into a church; they will, therefore, be passed over for the present, and the description will 
begin with an examination of the original jambs and lintel.’ 

Both the jambs were held by T-dowels ? in their lower ends, the lead being run in from 
the sides toward the wall (PLatrE XXV, 6, 7), — an operation which was possible only if the 
jambs were erected before the orthostates on the right and left of the door were in place. 
The boss on the north face of the east jamb near the top, which was not worked off in the 


JAMB 


Figure 64. NORTH DOOR: SPECIAL FORMS OF CLAMP (RIGHT) AND OF DOWEL (LEFT) 
USED TO SECURE JAMBS 


final dressing, would have been useful as an aid in steadying the jamb during the construc- 
tion, although it may have been used merely in erecting the stone. From the top of the 
orthostates horizontal dowels, two on each side, of the form shown in Figure 64 (left), ex- 
tended into the jambs and were sealed with lead. In courses 13, 15, and 17 two clamps, 


1 Kinnard (Stuart and Revett,? II, pp. 72, 73, note c) seems first to have called attention in print to the fact that 
the insertion of the later lining was caused by the breaking of the great lintel. Donaldson, Ancient Doorways (1818), 
text to pl. XXIII, first noted in print that these linings were late. See also Inwood, ed. maj., p. 112. In order to bring 
out the effect of the door as originally designed the late linings have been omitted in PLats XXV. They are shown 
in Puates VII, X, and XI. 

2 Cf. on the North Door, R. W. Schultz, J. H. S., XII, 1891, pp. 1-13, pls. I-III, and the correction of one im- 
portant point by S. H. Barnsley, ibid., pp. 381-383. 

8 The cuttings for these dowels are visible from the interior of the building, where the jambs and the sill have been 
hacked away in the search for metal. , 


DESCRIPTION oY 


modified from the usual k} form (Fig. 64, right), extended from the top of each course 
into the back of the jamb and were sealed in the same way (PLATE XXV, 6). Similarly, in 
course 16 certainly, and probably in courses 14 (on the east side of the door), 12, and 11, one 
such clamp was fixed in the jamb from the axis of the top of the course. The upper ends of 
the jambs were fastened to the adjacent course (10) of the wall by two 4 clamps (0.31 m. 
long) on each side (Fig. 40). As in every course the clamp could be inserted and sealed with 
lead only before the next course was laid, the conclusion is inevitable: the jambs are con- 
temporary with the erection of the building.' It may be added that the jambs are rabbeted 
to overlap the wall (PLatres XXV, 6, XXX, 18) and that the weathering and final dressing 
of the wall indicate that jambs with an overlap of this width (0.0207) m. have always ex- 
isted. The reveals of the jambs are carefully finished for their entire width, which implies 
that there was no inner sheathing. The inclination of each jamb toward the axis of the 
door is 0.044 m. The original Greek door was 4.882 m. in height, and 2.427 m. in width at 
the bottom, so that its opening formed essentially a double square. 

The lintel is now composed of two stones, one above the other, and together equal in 
height to two courses (8 and 9) of the wall (PLates XXV, XXXV, 3; Fig. 98). Its lower 
surface is smooth, showing that there was no casing. The ends of the lintel are rough and 
without anathyrosis. The lower stone is fastened at the top of its east end into the block of 
the console by a dowel, similar to those used between orthostates and jambs, but of different 
dimensions; how its west end is secured cannot be seen. The upper stone was held in place 
by iron wedges between it and the blocks of the wall above. One of the latter has a dowel 
cutting at its end, which has no corresponding cutting in the lintel. West of the lintel is a 
block of irregular shape, its east end dressed roughly without anathyrosis.? On its outer 
face are cuttings for the two dowels * which held the console that was under the west end of 
the upper part of the lintel (Fig. 65).4 East of the lintel a space of similar shape is filled by 

1 As urged by Barnsley, I. c. 

* PuateE VII, and, for the stone as seen from the inside, Figure 40; cf. J. H.S., XII, 1891, p. 2, fig. 1. 

3 These cuttings are only about 0.05 m. wide, and 0.09 m. high by 0.10 m. deep, so that heavy dowels of metal 
seem more probable than tenons of marble projecting from the console. 

4 It is not certain when the west console disappeared. In the British Museum (MSS., Add. 22,153, fol. 153) 
is a drawing made in 1818 by R. H. Sharpe of York, showing apparently the west corner of the door (Fig. 65). The 
console differs in details from the surviving one, but since there are errors in the rendering of the other mouldings, 
these differences may be due to the inaccuracy of the artist in preparing the finished drawing from his notes. This 
drawing is on tracing paper, and it is possible that it has been traced from a reversed drawing on heavy paper of the 
east corner, for it is not an uncommon architectural process to draw an object roughly, and then to make a clean and 
accurate tracing, which is turned upside down upon heavy paper and rubbed, thus making a clean reversed drawing 
upon the heavy paper. This drawing cannot, therefore, be cited as conclusive evidence for the existence of the console 
in 1818. On the other hand there is no direct statement that it had already been broken at that time. The portico 
then contained the Turkish powder magazine, which was protected by a concrete vault rising nearly to the top of the 
door and concealing in 1811 all but the upper part of the lintel (see Cockerell’s drawing, J. H. S., X XIX, 1909, pl. VII = 
Fig. 223). In 1818 things were somewhat better, for then Inwood (ed. min., p. 15, to pl. XX) cleared away ‘‘part of 
the ground .. . over the bottom of the console and ornaments for the purpose of making casts of them.’”’ This was 
the east console, but Inwood elsewhere, Wolfe (see App. A, XVII), and Donaldson (Ancient Doorways, pl. XXIII) 


regularly refer to consoles in the plural, without a hint that one was missing; in fact Donaldson writes of the ceiling 
of the vault as ‘‘not reaching higher than the consoles, which were quite clear.’’ After the Greek Revolution and the 


LINTEL 


100 THE ERECHTHEUM 


two blocks, the smaller of which — in the part of the space only one course high — has a 
rough dressing on its west side, while the larger is the one already mentioned on which is 
worked the console still in situ (PLate XXV, 5). This block is firmly fixed by iron wedges 
above and to the west, with lead about those in the latter place to close the joint. The ad- 
jacent block in the wall has in the upper surface, which is in line with the upper surface of 
the console block, remains of two cuttings for | clamps, without any corresponding cut- 
tings in the console block. 

The better the Erechtheum is known, the stranger seem some of the things just described, 
— a marble lintel composed of two blocks in the largest door in the building, when the lintel 


Ficure 65. NORTH DOOR: WEST UPPER CORNER: FROM A DRAWING IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 


of even the smallest door is composed of a single block extending through two courses; 
the use of wedges in place of exact fitting; the rough ends of stones, without carefully 
worked anathyrosis; the lack of correspondence in clamp and dowel cuttings. These irreg- 
ularities — and a much smaller number would fully suffice — prove conclusively that the 


disaster to the North Portico we find Schaubert noting (MSS., Breslau, V, 312) “die linke Console in der Thiir der 
Nordhalle war mit einem Zapfen angesetzt,”’ which suggests that the west console was not then in place. It must 
be added that we still continue to hear of the consoles as if both were present (Schaubert, Museum, I, 1833, p. 261; 
Chenavard, Voyage en Gréce, to pl. XVIII). The first definite statement is made by Rangabé (R. Arch., I, 1845, 
p. 323) who, in describing the door after the clearing of the Portico, speaks of ‘‘deux trés-belles consoles aux deux 
cétés de son linteau (une seule existe).’’ It would seem, however, that some fragments at any rate of the lost console 
were believed to have survived, for Beulé (II, p. 273) mentions ‘une des consoles, toute différente de l’autre par ses 
ornements et par son style” and G. Castellazzi (Ricordi di architettura orientale, to pl. XX VIII) states that “una delle 
mensole esterne, ora caduta a terra, differisce sensibilmente dalla sussistente.”” In view of this evidence it is probable, 
though not certain, that the west console remained in place until 1827, that it was broken by the fall of the western 
ceiling beams in that year, and that some fragments, which survived for a time, have since been lost. 


DESCRIPTION 101 


present lintel is not original,1 but an insertion to replace the original lintel, after it had met 
with serious injury. This original lintel was longer than its successor, and the peculiarly 
shaped stone to the west and the small stone east of the console block are the remains of its 
ends, which were left after the central portion had been cut away. Originally the east con- 
sole, as well as the west, was separate and attached by dowels to the face of the lintel. 
Apparently the former was damaged, while the other one was not, and in the restoration 
it seemed easier on the whole to form the new console on the face of a block which extended 
through the wall. 

Of the six rough cuttings visible in the stones immediately above the lintel (PLATE 
XXYV), the first, third, fourth, and sixth run through the wall (PLarz XXV, 2), and were 
evidently made at the time of the repairs for the insertion of beams, which, properly sup- 
ported, held the weight of the wall above while the old lintel was cut out and the new one 
inserted. There are corresponding slight depressions in the top of the upper stone of the 
Roman lintel (PLaTE XXV, 4). The other two cuttings were probably also used to assist 
in some way in the propping, but their exact purpose is not certain. All of these cuttings 
are invisible from the pavement of the portico. 

A comparison of the design and execution of the ornament on the lintel with that on the 
jambs ? confirms the conclusions reached by a study of the evidence from the construction. 
The anthemion of the crowning member of the lintel is much more crudely cut than else- 
where in the building. The egg-and-dart on the cymatium is inferior to that which appears, 
for example, on the beams of the ceiling of the North Portico, and the method of repairing 
accidental damage is entirely different, in that the joint of an inserted piece runs through an 
egg, instead of being so placed that it falls on the axis or follows the outline of a dart and is 
thus concealed. The carving of the band of leaf ornament, between the rosettes and the 
opening of the door (PLatm XX XVII, 6), exhibits on the lintel a much more extensive use 
of the drill, especially in rendering the outline of the serrate leaves, and the two leaves at the 
angles differ from one another, showing how carelessly the spacing was planned. The axial 
distances of the bead-and-reel mouldings differ on the lintel (0.034 m.) and on the jambs 
(0.0265 m.), and in the case of the former there is no agreement with the neighboring band 
of leaves, as there is on the jambs, and in fact generally in the Erechtheum. On comparing 


1 Much of the evidence and the conclusion have been already presented by R. W. Schultz, J. c. 

2 These differences in the ornamentation aroused the suspicion of some of the early travellers. Haller von Hal- 
lerstein (MSS, Strasbourg, Box III, Vol. 8, p. 239): ‘Le travail dans les Ornaments des Moulures de la Porte est 
beaucoup au dessous de celui de Reste de |’Architecture; et on reconnoit méme dans le style de ces ornaments une 
malheureuse imitation des autres.”” Donaldson (Ancient Doorways, pls. XXIV, XXV) assigns the “‘cyma of the cor- 
nice”’ to repairs after the fire of 406 B.c. J. L. Wolfe (1820; App. A, XVII) notes: “The great cymatium enriched with 
an ornament most vilely executed and as vilely designed. It would disgrace the middle ages.” Schaubert (Museum, 
I, 1833, p. 261) thought that the consoles were a later addition. Rangabé (R. Arch., I, 1845, p. 322) suggested that 
the door had been altered in antiquity. Tétaz (R. Arch., VIII, 1851, p. 84) argued that the character of the orna- 
mentation showed both the lintel of the door and the columns of the West Fagade to be later constructions. Beulé 
(II, p. 273) writes, “Je crois que dans l’antiquité la porte a été, soit remaniée, soit achevée par différentes mains.” 

3 The photograph has been reversed. The leaf-and-tongue ornament should be on the right of the rosette. 


ORNAMENT 


102 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the rosettes on the lintel and the jambs the carving is seen to be different, particularly in 
the small petals of the inner row, and, furthermore, on the lintel the second rosette from 
the west end has but eight inner petals instead of the usual twelve. The axes too of the 
rosettes on either side of the central rosette are inclined instead of being vertical like the 
others. In none of the rosettes on the lintel is the centre bored to receive an ornament of 
another material, as is the case in most of the rosettes on the jambs. 

The side of the console next to the jamb is nearly vertical, while the other side is con- 
siderably inclined (PLATE XXV). That part of the acanthus leaf, which projected below 
the stone on which the console was formed, is now missing, and in the drawings on PLATE 
XXV has been freely restored. 

There is every reason for believing that the present lintel is a tolerably accurate copy 
of the original one. The band of rosettes and everything inside of it must, of course, have 
been the same in both, and something like the cymatium with the egg-and-dart, and the 
crowning anthemion is obviously required above, while the combined height of these orna- 
ments is determined by the height, equal to two courses, of the lintel block. The consoles, 
too, are certainly part of the original design. This can be stated with greater assurance since 
the discovery of the door of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi,” and also since the recognition 
of the striking similarities between the design of the lintels of the windows in the east wall 
of the Erechtheum (p. 44) and that of the North Door. In both, above the framing proper 
of the opening, there are additional bands of ornament, the uppermost of them resting on 
the consoles which seem to have been traditional in the Ionic order. It may be added that 
in both cases the consoles were applied. 

And, indeed, why should there have been any change in the treatment when repairs 
were found necessary? It was certainly less difficult to copy the old than to invent a new 
design. Moreover, the style of the present cymatium and anthemion is more in the spirit of 
the end of the fifth century than in that of the period when these repairs seem to have been 
found necessary. For, in default of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume 
that the same catastrophe which necessitated the replacing, in the ceiling of the North 
Portico, of the beam on the axis of the door (p. 87) was responsible also for the repairs on the 
door and for the alteration of the West Facade. A fire sweeping out through this door might 
easily calcine part of the lintel and of the beam without seriously injuring the jambs. The 

! The centres of all the rosettes on the east jamb and of the two upper ones on the west jamb were certainly bored; 
the two lower ones on the west jamb were as certainly not bored, or at any rate not bored to the depth of those on 
the east; while a fragment belonging presumably to the west jamb, but the exact place of which cannot be fixed, 
shows a rosette with its centre unbored. As for the rest of the west jamb, the surface is so badly damaged that it is 
impossible to say whether the remaining rosettes were bored or not. Rangabé (R. Arch., II, 1845, p. 323) calls atten- 
tien to the difference in the rosettes on the lintel and on the jambs, and adds that remains of perforated wooden plugs, 
in which metal ornaments had doubtless been inserted, were still to be found in the holes on the jambs. See also 
Tétaz, ibid., VIII, 1851, p. 94; Beulé, II, p. 273. All traces of the plugs had disappeared before 1905. Inwood (ed. 
min., p. 15 and pl. XX) in clearing away rubbish from the east console, in order to make a cast, found close to the 


doorway a small bronze disk, about 0.043 m. in diameter, which may well have decorated the centre of a rosette. 
2 On early Ionic consoles at Delphi, cf. Dinsmoor, B. C. H., XX XVII, 1913, p. 59. 


DESCRIPTION 103 


weakness of the decorative carving and the clumsiness displayed in fitting the inserted 
stones agree with the evidence of the West Facade in suggesting a fairly late date for these 
repairs, probably not far from the end of the first century B.c. 

The latest linings of the door (PLates VII, X, XI, XXXV, 3; Fig. 98) were evidently 
inserted to hide from below the crack in the Roman lintel. The jambs are each formed of 
three pieces of stone, attached to the earlier jambs by == clamps at each joint. The lower 
ends are sunk into the sill. The later lintel is set with an interval of about 0.12 m. between 
it and the broken stone above to avoid any possible danger of fracture by the settling of the 
upper stone. This open space is masked on the exterior by a stone, triangular in section, 
with several mouldings on its face (PLatrms VII, X, and, on a larger scale, J. H. S., XII, 
1891, p. 6, fig. 5). 

The door sill has suffered greatly in the course of its existence, and the wear of feet 
and maltreatment have destroyed much evidence as to its earlier condition. The step cut 
on the exterior is manifestly not ancient (PLATE XXXV, 3); it may date from the altera- 
tion into a church or possibly from a still later time. On the inside the sill is rabbeted 
(PLATE XXV, 7; Fig. 98), but the workmanship is poor, even for the Roman alterations, 
and it may well be later. 

Within the building, on the axis of the later jamb linings, are iron sockets set into the sill 
and fixed with lead (PLATE II.) They belong manifestly to a door contemporary with these 
linings. Other cuttings for door pivots (PLATE XXV, 6, 7) belong with the earlier jambs, 
but to judge by the character of the workmanship in the cuttings themselves and in the 
rabbet in which they are sunk, they are Roman, or perhaps Christian, rather than Greek, 
being contemporary with the earlier set in the small western door. The absence of the rabbet 
in the original Greek construction implies that probably the pivots were then on the level 
of the sill. The distance of the Greek western cross-wall (p. 152) is just sufficient to allow 
the eastern leaf of the door to fold against the north wall. On the other side, however, the 
face of the course below the orthostates in the west wall was about 0.078 m. farther east 
than the west jamb of the door, and its top was somewhat higher than the sill (Puates I, 
XI). It thus became necessary, if the western leaf of the door were to swing back about 
90° or a little more, that this course should be cut down, at least in part, and of this cutting 
a perfectly distinct vertical trace can still be seen, 1.065 m. from the south face of the sill, 
and 0.137 m. from the west orthostate (Fig. 36). The bottom of the preserved surface of 
this cutting is 0.17 m. or less above the level of the pavement in the west room (p. 163) and 
about 0.05 m. below the threshold of the door. It seems clear, therefore, that this course 
was cut down to the level of the pavement and not merely far enough to give the door free 
swing. The line of the cutting, however, was not parallel to the west wall, for near the sill 


1 The total traceable height of the cutting is 0.15 m.; the original surface is visible for about 0.015 m. from the 
present top of the block (the upper part of the block is broken away) and the cutting itself can be felt for about 
0.135 m. more. 


LATE 
LININGS 


SILL AND 
SOCKETS 


FISSURES 


104 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the course below the orthostate projects 0.073 m. farther east than it does at the vertical 
trace of the cutting (PLATE II; Fig. 36). Hence we may assume that the cutting ran 
obliquely from the vertical line, which marked its southern limit, to the face of the sill near 
the original pivot of the door (Pxatss I, II).1 The nature of the doors in Greek times is 
unknown, as they are not mentioned in the inscriptions, but that they were swinging doors 
is proved by the cutting just mentioned. The sill shows two sets of two bolt holes, much 
worn from long use and without distinguishing features such as would justify their assign- 
ment to the two periods respectively. 

On the south face of the Greek jambs are dowel holes for the attachment of a wooden 
or metal casing, or perhaps solely for the attachment of the doors (PLatTE XI). Similar 
holes on the lintel were destroyed in 1904 in inserting a steel girder to sustain the weight of 
the rebuilt ceiling and roof of the North Portico (PLATE XI). Among these latter holes were 
those for the dowels which must have held the upper pivot of the east valve of the door. 
There is also a cutting, possibly to receive the lower end of a casing, to the south of the 
west jamb in the course below the orthostates of the west wall (PLATE X). It is 0.10 m. 
wide, overlaps the jamb to the west 0.03 m., and at the bottom aligns with the sill of the 
North Door. On the late jamb linings are cuttings for doors or gratings of uncertain date, 
but which may well be mediaeval or Turkish. 


X. THE CRYPT BENEATH THE NortTH PoRTICO 


In the southeast corner of the North Portico several slabs of the pavement are lacking, re- 
vealing in the rock below three groups of fissures of different sizes and varying depths 
(Puatss IT, VII, VIII, 1X; Fig. 664, 1,2,3). The rock here shows no trace of dressing, though, 
so far as can be seen, it has been carefully smoothed where it was to receive the foundations 
of the portico. These foundations have been built about the irregular space in which the 
fissures lie so as to enclose them in a small crypt, which is connected with the main building ~ 
by a passage beneath the north wall. How important it was considered that these fissures 
should remain untouched may be judged from the fact that, in order to avoid any encroach- 
ment on group 1 (Fig. 66), the crypt was even carried under the east anta of the portico, 
although this to a slight extent weakened the foundation of the anta. Moreover, it was in- 
tended that the fissures should remain, at least technically, under the open heaven, for the 
opening in the pavement above them is itself beneath the opening in the roof of the portico 
(p. 89). These facts clearly show that some special religious significance was attributed to 
this spot, and indeed, since the clearing of the crypt by Tétaz in 1848,” its ancient origin has 


1 For the dressing on the south face of the sill of the door and the conclusions that may be drawn therefrom, see 
pp. 162 ff. 

2 'Tétaz, R. Arch., VIII, 1851, p. 9. In Fauvel’s plan of the Erechtheum (Bibl. Nat., Estampes, Gb, 15 a, fol. 16) 
there has been added in pencil this reference to the North Portico, “Ici une citerne moderne.”’ The date of the addi- 
tion is not known, but Fauvel died in 1831, and is not likely to have added this note after leaving Athens in 1823. 
He probably obtained his information from some of Lord Elgin’s artists, who were permitted to enter the powder ma- 


DESCRIPTION 105 


been generally accepted, and the fissures identified with the oxfua rpratyns of Pausanias, or, 
more recently, with the marks of a thunderbolt and the cult of Zeus Hypatos. 

The crypt has suffered a good deal in the course of time, its chief injuries arising appar- 
ently from the construction just east of the portico of a cistern (PLaTE II), which was con- 
nected with the crypt by breaking away the poros foundations beneath the steps and stylo- 
bate at the southeast corner of the portico, as shown by the hatched lines on Puate VIII, 7. 
That this opening is not ancient is obvious. The rock here is dressed to a smooth bed for 
the foundations; dowel cuttings in both steps and stylobate above this bed are now in mid- 
air with no corresponding course below; a clamp in the back of the bottom step, two more 
in the back of the middle step, and another in the backing of the same step, below the inner 
edge of the stylobate, imply adjoining blocks now missing; and finally the poros behind the 
lowest step and in the southeast angle has been roughly hewn away (Puares VII, VIII, IX). 
Probably in connection with these alterations a circular well of concrete for drawing water, 
not yet removed, was constructed in the northwest corner of the crypt, and a channel was 
roughly cut in the pavement of the portico (PLaAtTs II) to carry off any water spilled in 
drawing from the well.* In spite of these mutilations enough remains to make possible, in 
combination with the statements of the inscriptions about the altar of the Thyechoiis, a 
fairly probable reconstruction of the original conditions, and in Figure 66 are given a plan 
and sections of the pavement and its superstructure above the fissures. 

The position here assigned to the ancient opening is based on the following considera- 
tions. The south side of stone A projects about 0.08 m. beyond the poros foundations be- 
neath (PLatsE VIII, 5). The present eastern part of this southern face is due to a fracture, 
but the western part has a carefully finished surface (PLATE VIII, 6; Fig. 67), which now 
extends about 0.40 m. (14 At. ft.) east of the joint a (Fig. 66 A), and may well have ex- 
tended a little farther, perhaps as much as 13 feet in all (Fig. 67). It may be regarded as 
certain that no other stone was in contact with this finished surface and that it formed part 
of the north side of an opening in the pavement. The present south face of stone B shows 
rough dressing with a pointed chisel, which has destroyed all evidence of the continuation 
upon B of the smooth surface of A (Fig. 67 4). If, however, the width of the opening in the 
pavement was two Attic feet — a probable inference from the inscription, as will be shown 
below — this surface must have extended from one-half to three-quarters of a foot on B. 
Anathyrosis on the west face of stone C, so far as it is preserved, and of the stone immedi- 
ately to the south (PLaTE IX; Fig. 67 a), and also on the east face of stone D (PLATE VIII, 5) 
shows that in all probability stones A and B extended south nearly, if not quite, to the wall 


gazine in the portico, from which strangers were generally rigidly excluded. The passage under the north wall was 
noted by Ross in 1835 (Arch. Aufs., I, p. 99). 
1 Botticher (Untersuchungen, pp. 190 ff.) seems alone in assigning a largely modern origin to the opening in the 
pavement and the present crypt. His promised discussion of the ancient conditions was apparently never published. 
2 Some writers, as for example Bétticher (Untersuchungen, p. 192) and Michaelis (J.-M., Atlas, pls. XX, XXVI1), 
consider that these constructions belonged rather to a cesspool and latrine than to a cistern and well. It is certain that 
the whole construction, whatever its purpose, was within the Turkish house on this spot (p. 524). 


LATER 
ALTERA- 
TIONS 


THE 
ANCIENT 
OPENING 


[ 106 ] 


7 TT 


Yj) 
Ti 


OF 
WY 
Vas 


Ys, 


Se TAReaaseaaceaes 
Sortrirrirr = 


cat 


=, 
° 
iz 
fp 
3 


ams 


a} | 
NULL! 
i 


20: 6 
R777) JAE. 
DAs y wee, ey 


Figure 66. NORTH PORTICO: OPENING IN PAVEMENT AND ALTAR OF THE THYECHOUS: RESTORED. 
(A) PLAN. (B) SECTION, LOOKING EAST. (C) SECTION, LOOKING SOUTH 


LM ALE a —- 


DESCRIPTION 107 


of the portico, the southern end of B being apparently marked by a pry hole (Piate II; 
Fig. 66 a, d) in the top of the large block over the southern part of the crypt. Anathyrosis 
on the north face of stone D (Fig. 67 B) shows that another block of the pavement filled the 
space now largely occupied by the circular concrete well. It thus appears that the ancient 
opening in the pavement must have been cut in the stones A and B and that a part of its 
north face is preserved on the south face of A. 

For the probable size of the opening it is necessary to turn to the inscriptions. In the 
report of the Commissioners of 409/88B.c. we are told that in the North Portico the 
Altar of the Thyechoiis was still unplaced.!_ By the following year (408/7 B.c.), however, 
it seems to have been erected; at least in the eighth prytany thirty-five drachmas were paid 
for smoothing the two orthostates beside this altar.2 Since in the North Portico there are 
two orthostates on the east of the great door and only one on the west (PLATE VII), it fol- 
lows that the altar stood in the southeast corner of the portico and probably at no great dis- 
tance from the wall.* It was thus in close proximity to the opening in the pavement and can 
hardly be separated from the cult associated with the marks in the crypt. A third passage 
throws some light upon its size and shape.*’ Among the partly worked stones which were 
lying on the ground in the summer of 409 B.c. were at least four blocks — a considerable 
gap in the inscription leaves the total number unknown, — which were intended for this 
altar. Three of these blocks were four Attic feet long, two feet and one-quarter high, and 
one foot thick; of the fourth only the length, three Attic feet, is certain, but traces of a few 
more letters indicate that the height was the same as that of the other blocks, and presum- 
ably this was also true of the thickness. These blocks have thus the form of orthostates,° 
and it is a reasonable supposition that they formed the four sides of the altar. In that case 
the latter cannot well have been less than four feet broad and four feet and one-half long, 
and may have been larger. There is not sufficient room for an altar of these dimensions be- 
tween the wall and the opening in the pavement and therefore it must be placed around the 
opening.® In this position the arrangement of the four blocks mentioned in the inscription, 
as shown in Figure 66, although conjectural, accords with all the available evidence. As 
thus restored the altar measures four feet from east to west and five feet from north to south; 
the enclosed space, which may be assumed to correspond with the opening in the pavement, 
is two feet by three. ; 

In accordance with the usual Greek practice the altar has been placed upon a step or 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 77-80. 

2 See Ch. IV, Inscription XVI], col. 1, Il. 60-63. 

3 The altar must have been sufficiently near the wall to serve as a natural indication of the position of the ortho- 
states, and yet not near enough to conceal them. Even if it were not yet in place, the orthostates would not have been 
given the expensive final dressing unless they were to remain visible. 

4 See Ch. IV, Inscription I, col. 1, Il. 95-99, and Commentary, p. 318. 

5 Since the height is greater than the thickness, it is clear that the blocks stood upright, and were not flat paving 
slabs. 

6 A position north of the opening would remove the altar too far from the wall. 


ALTAR 


FigurE 67. NORTH PORTICO: OPENING IN PAVEMENT (1922): (A) FROM WEST. 
(B) FROM NORTHWEST 


[ 108 ] 


DESCRIPTION 109 


‘small platform, which conceals the irregular jointing of stones B and D on the west of the 
opening, and of stone C on the east (Piate IT; Fig. 66 a), —an irregularity quite at variance 
with the careful adjustment of the pavement elsewhere in the portico. The step has been 
given a greater width on the west, as is customary, and the following evidence justifies con- 
tinuing this greater width across the south end.! On the base of the wall (course 19) there is 
a horizontal line 0.223 m. above the pavement with a weathered surface above but not 
below; a boss only partially worked off lies just below this line (Fig. 67 B); the lower torus of 
the base of the adjacent anta is not fluted on the west side and the guilloche on the upper 
torus has not been fully carved in the corner by the wall (Pare IX; Fig. 67).2 All these 
facts indicate the presence of a stone, about 0.223 m. high, which hid the lower part of the 
base of the wall and of the anta, but was not in actual contact with the wall, as is shown by 
the projecting boss. The broad step furnished a standing place for the priest on the west 
and perhaps for an assistant on the south. On the existing pavement there are no marks 
of the presence of such a step, or indeed of any enclosure around the opening, or of an altar. 
Yet the opening can hardly have been left unprotected and the altar was certainly in the 
portico. Under the protection of a roof, however, the difference in weathering between the 
exposed and concealed parts of the pavement would be slight, and any marks might easily 
have been effaced during the long period in which the portico served as house or powder 
magazine.’ 

As thus restored, the opening in the pavement is out of the way of those entering the 
great door, and yet directly above the most important group of fissures, while the other two 
groups are easily seen from the portico (Fig. 66 B, c, lines of sight b andc). The relative 
positions of the fissures and of the two openings, in the pavement and in the roof, with 
reference to the same north and south line are shown in Puats VIII, 4, 6, and 7, which are 
all drawn at the same scale; Figure 66 shows the relation of the restored altar to the crypt 
and fissures. The difference in axis between the opening in the pavement and that in the 
roof is due to the fixed position of the marble beam of the ceiling, which made it necessary 
to shift the opening in the roof somewhat toward the west; it is also slightly farther south 
than the opening in the pavement. 

Close to the wall, in the marble block on which the south ies of stones A and B rested, 
is a small opening of excellent workmanship, roughly semi-circular in form like the cutting 
for a gutter placed vertically, and extending downward through the stone (Figs. 66, 67, E). 
It seems certain that it is original and not connected with Christian or Turkish alterations, 
for the block in the wall on the south shows no trace of chipping or injury, which could 


1 The step of the altar of Athena Hygicia east of the Propylaea is broader on the west (0.825 m.) and very slightly 
broader on the south (0.33 m.) than on the north and east. 

2 The cutting in this corner resembles that in a mitred joint, and suggests that the anta was cut to fit a moulding 
at the base of the wall. It was probably the architect’s intention to carry all the mouldings at the base of the north 
wall across the North Portico as was done in the East Portico, but the design was changed and the moulding omitted, 
perhaps because of the presence of the altar. 

3 See Ch. V, pp. 524, 532. 


DOORWAY 


ENTRANCE 
ON EAST 


110 THE ERECHTHEUM 


hardly have been avoided had the hole been cut in later times.’ It was probably continued 
through the block in the pavement above, but its purpose is quite uncertain.’ 

Crowded between the foundation under the southeast anta of the North Portico and the 
western cross wall of the interior is a small doorway, 0.63 m. wide and about 1.20 m. high 
(Piates I, VII, VIII, 5, 7, [X, XI; Figs. 66, 112). It has no sill and the rock here is not 
even smoothed, though it is dressed under the roughly finished marble blocks to the right 
and left of the opening. In the under surface of its lintel is countersunk an iron bar, 0.08 m. 
wide and at least 0.035 m. thick, set in lead * and running across the opening from east to 
west. It was probably inserted to strengthen the lintel, which is only about 0.497 m. high 
instead of the usual two courses (0.96 m.), although it had to bear the weight of the wall 
above, and has, in fact, cracked on the north side under this pressure.* 


XI. Tse Porcy or THE MAIDENS 


The construction of the podium on which the maidens stand is shown on PLates XXYVI, 
XXVII, and XXVIII, and does not call for any detailed description;* both the exterior and 
interior faces are vertical. 

The opening at the northeast corner of the podium seems to have been first observed in 
January, 1789, by Fauvel while clearing and measuring the Porch of the Maidens, and it 
appears upon his plan of that year.® Its date remained, however, a subject of dispute, even 
after the removal in 1845 of the masonry which filled it, until C. Bétticher, who had been 
one of the most pronounced sceptics, withdrew his objections in consequence of his inves- 
tigations in 1862, and indeed argued convincingly in favor of its antiquity.’ Since then 
there has been general agreement that it is part of the original construction, and not due 
to a later alteration. The entire absence of anathyrosis on the face of the anta, and the 
presence of mouldings on all three sides of its base are, in fact, decisive arguments against 
the existence here of an ancient wall; and this conclusion is confirmed by the continuation 
of the mouldings at the bottom and top of the podium from the outer face through the 


1 A modern origin is claimed for the hole in, for example, Report Gr. Comm., § 25; Nilsson, J. H. S., XXI, 1901, 
pp. 328 f. 

2 It would be tempting to assume that this hole was used for the emission of mysterious sounds or vapors. There 
is, however, no record of such phenomena on the Acropolis, apart from the noise of waves heard within the salt ‘‘sea”’ 
when the south wind blew (Paus, I, 26, 5), and the probable position of the ‘‘sea’”’ (pp. 169 ff.; Puavs I, bp) renders it 
extremely unlikely that this sound was supposed to become audible at a point so remote from its reputed origin as the 
North Portico. It may well be that the opening merely aided in lighting the passage into the crypt from the main 
building. 

3 Some of this lead has been torn out, and an examination of the surface thus exposed shows that the lead was 
poured into the cavity in two instalments, and that the first pouring was allowed to cool before the second was added. 
During the whole operation the stone must have been lying with the bottom side up. 

4 See W. B. Dinsmoor, ‘Structural Iron in Greek Architecture,’ A. J. A., XXVI, 1922, pp. 151 f. 

5 For some peculiarities of construction, see Ch. II, pp. 218 f. 

§ Bibl. Nat., MSS., Fonds fr. 22877, fol. 23v° (App. A, XIV, 8); Estampes, G b, 15 a, fol. 16; ef. below Ch. V, 
p. 546. The discovery was published in 1806 by J. G. Legrand, Gal. ant., I, p. 76; see App. A, XIV, 13. 

7 C. Bétticher’s earlier view is in Z. Bawwesen, IX, 1859, cols. 325-328; his later in Untersuchungen, p. 44. 


DESCRIPTION 111 


opening and along the inner face (Fig. 68), although it is only on the exterior that they 
are reeded or given the carved egg-and-dart ornament. 

It may further be regarded as certain, as has indeed been satan tly maintained,’ that 
this opening was not intended, like the two chief doors of the temple, for the general public. 
The distance from the upper step to the sill (0.488 m.) is too great to be taken comfortably 
by a person of ordinary height; there would always be danger of injuring the upper member 


Y 
ZZ 


4 ° 4 aM 


Figure 68. PORCH OF THE MAIDENS: PLAN OF STAIRCASE: RESTORED 


of the scotia, which was continued from the south wall about the porch; and there was 
an awkward projecting ‘‘jog’”’ between the sill and the level of the floor inside (PLATES 
VII, XXVIII). 

The statues of the Maidens (xédpar)? have all suffered much injury, and the northern 
statue on the east side is in large part modern. During the restoration in 1908 all the statues 
were removed, repaired, and, when replaced, were carefully centred beneath the joints of 

1 For example, Kinnard, Stuart and Revett,? I, p. 63, note; Beulé, II, pp. 220-222. Julius, however, in Bau- 
meister, Denkméiler, s.v. ‘Erechtheion,’ calls it ‘ein qnonien wales Tigonenhaaa and in his Erechtheion, p. 7, writes, 


“die ganze Halle hatte den Zweck eine Treppenanlage .. . zu Sd ae so that he seems to have tearda itasa 


general entrance. 
2 For description and nies ean of these statues, see Ch. III, pp. 232 ff.; Phares XX XVIII, XXXIX; Figs. 


145-149. 


THE 
MAIDENS 


ANTAE 


112 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the epistyle. The intervals between the maidens on the front are, therefore, unequal, and 
the northeast maiden is a little farther north than the northwest one (PLATE X XVII, 8, 9; 
Fig. 69). 

The six maidens also differ from one another in minor details, such as the treatment of 
the hair behind — whether more or less straight — or of the drapery.1 The figure in the 
British Museum (Sculpture, I, p. 233, No. 407; Phats XX XVIII), which stood on the south 
side next to the figure at the southwest corner, has by far the most elaborate arrangement 
of the drapery as seen from behind and the most wavy hair. The next xépn on the east 
(Fig. 149) has three curls hanging down on each side, while the others have but two. On 
the same figure the cushion below the echinus shows traces of very low and irregular lines 
which are perhaps the remains of a vertical reeding or else the outlines of a leaf-and-tongue 
ornament such as may well have been painted on the cushions of the other statues without 
preliminary carving. The original capital of this maiden has disappeared. The west half 
of the present capital is modern (Fig. 149), the east half (PLarz XX XIX, 4, 5, 6) is the east 
half of the original capital of the northeast maiden,? both the head and capital of which 
are restorations. In both these capitals the joint fell between the cushion and the echinus, 
the latter being on the same block as the abacus. The capitals of the other four maidens 
have the joint between the abacus and the echinus, which is here part of the statue. In 
this group of capitals the echinus is secured to the abacus by wrought iron pins, 0.015 m. 
in diameter, held in place by cement * (PLatEs XXVI, XXVIII). Similar pins hold the 
plinths on which the maidens stand to the podium, but the maidens themselves are fastened 
to the plinths by wooden empolia (PLatss X XVI, XXVII, 8).4 In Stuart and Revett’s 
drawings, ° which have been followed with but few exceptions ° by later illustrators, the 
maidens are shown with a dart of the moulded echinus on the front axis. This is incorrect, 
as In all cases an egg is on the axis. 

The base and shaft of the east anta were formed of one stone, which was applied to the 


1 The comments of J. L. Wolfe (App. A, XVII) on these points are not without interest: ‘‘ Nothing can be more 
beautiful than the whole of the drapery on the front of the figures but the back is too flat; — no care seems to have 
been bestowed on [it] although it is seen from many points of view.... The hair on the back is most frightfully 
arranged.”’ 

? The identification is proved by the position of the cutting in the top of the capital for the dowel which secured 
a block of the architrave. The horizontal axis of the capital, which coincides with the iong axis of the dowel, passes 
through an egg in the moulding. Since in all the capitals the north and south axis passes through eggs and the east 
and west through tongues, it is clear that the direction of the dowel, and consequently of the block which it secured, 
was from north to south, or in other words that the architrave was on the side and not the front of the porch (PLATES 
XXVI, XXVII, 9). The fragment must, therefore, belong to the only missing capital from the sides or corners, that 
is, to the capital of the northeast maiden. 

’ For an analysis of this cement see Ch. II, Note A, p. 225. 

4 The left sandal of the northwest maiden was fastened to the plinth by a small metal pin, 0.005 m. square, set 
in cement. It is probable that this sandal and the foot above were carved separately and inserted to repair an injury 
to, or defect in, the original block. 

5 Stuart and Revett, Vol. II, Ch. II, pls. XVI, XVII, XIX. 

§ Bihlmann, Architektur des klassischen Alterthums, pl. XVII, places the moulding correctly. 


DESCRIPTION 113 


face of the wall and fastened near its upper end by a single clamp (PLATE VII).! As the plane 
of the wall under the porch was 0.024 m. behind the plane of the wall outside, the shaft of 
the anta was rabbeted on its east side.?, The capital was carved on a block of the south 
wall (Phates XXVII, 4, XXVIII, XXXVI, 1). . 

The base and the lower part of the shaft (0.489 m.) of the west anta were cut on the huge 
stone which spanned the Cecropium (p. 128). The upper part of the shaft was a separate 
stone, held so firmly by the podium that no clamps were necessary on top, only two “keys” 
to prevent any possible lateral movement (PLatr X XVII, 7). The capital was on a separate 
block. It was destroyed by the Turks during the siege of 1826, but two fragments, which 
fit together and form the eastern portion, have been identified and replaced (Fig. 69). The 
two upper mouldings of the capitals of the antae are continued across the face of the wall 
within the porch, forming a wall capital or epicranitis (PLArEs VII, XXVI, XXIX, 9). At 
the east and west ends these mouldings are worked on the blocks of the wall; in the centre 
they are carved on inserted strips, one of which is now in the British Museum.*! 

All the clamps in the epistylia, as shown in PLatz XXVII, 9, were visible during the 
reconstruction in 1908. On the east side of the porch the northern epistyle block, as is 
proved by a dowel in its south end, was laid before the block at the southeast corner. This 
latter block is an extreme example of a favorite construction in the Erechtheum — that of 
forming both sides of an angle on the same stone.® The egg-and-dart moulding at the top of 
the epistyle on the inside was continued across the face of the wall. This moulding was 
carved on separate pieces inserted above the eastern and central blocks of the wall, but was 
worked directly upon the western block (PLaTEs XXVI, 2, XXVIII). 

The discs on the upper fascia of the architrave are carved on the face of the stone with 
the exception of the third from the west on the south side, which is inserted. According to 
the report of the commission of 409 B.c. it was intended to carve these discs into rosettes,° 
but apparently this intention was not carried out, since there is no clear trace of carving on 
any of them.’ The spacing of the discs is not uniform but shows considerable variation even 
on the same block. By actual measurement the distances on centres vary from a minimum 
of 0.3438 m. (the second and third spaces from the west on the south side) to a maximum of 

1 Since the shaft of the anta rose about 0.108 m. above the joint between courses 6 and 7 of the wall, the cutting 
in the shaft for the clamp must have been unusually deep, unless a special form of clamp, similar to those which held 
the jambs of the North Door (Fig. 64) was employed. The former alternative seems more probable. 

2 The thinning of the wall within the porch may be connected with the efforts to lighten the load at the weakly 
supported southwest corner of the main building. Above the porch the three upper courses have the same thickness 
as the rest of the south wall and consequently overhang the wall beneath the roof of the porch (Puats IV) 

3 Neigebaur and Aldenhoven, Handbuch ftir Reisende in Griechenland, p. 92; see also Figs. 225, 228. 

4 This fragment from the Inwood collection is not from the capital of the anta (Sculpture, I, p. 237, No. 411), but 
from this moulding, as is correctly stated on the label in the Museum. The gap from which it came can still be seen 
(Puare VII; Fig. 69). 

5 On this extravagant use of material see Ch. II, pp. 219 f. 

6 See Ch. IV, Inscription IJ, Col. 1, ll. 90-92, and Commentary, p. 314. 


7 On the southwest block many of the discs show indications of a raised rim, but this seems to be due to weather- 
ing, not carving, for a similar rim appears at the edge of the fasciae of the same block, where it can hardly be original. 


EPISTYLE 


ROOF 


114 THE ERECHTHEUM 


0.452 m. (between the two southern discs on the west side); from calculation it appears 
that the second, third, and fourth spaces from the south on the east side, where the stone 
is too defaced to permit accurate measurements, were each about 0.477 m. 

In order to receive the stones forming the roof of the Porch of the Maidens the wall at 
the rear of the porch in course 5 was dressed down 0.044 m. for almost half its thickness east 
of the niche (PLATE X XVII, 2, 9), thereby destroying the clamps which had already been 
set, as is shown by the traces still visible (PLarz X XVII, 9).1 In the niche and southwest 
anta, where the blocks were thin, the reduction was carried through the entire thickness, 
thus making course 5 about 0.09 m. lower than course 4, — an irregularity which was plainly 
visible from the outside in the anta, and from the inside in both anta and niche (Puatss IV, 
X, XII). On top of the roof-stones were laid thin slabs of marble in order to fill the gap 
between them and a horizontal joint of the wall (PLatres X XVII, 2; XXVIII). They were 
about 0.70 m. long (judging from dowel cuttings), 0.051 m. thick, and projected 0.05 m. 
from the face of the wall. Dowels, and at the west end a round pin, 0.01 m. in diameter and 
set in cement, held them to the roof-stones (PLATE X XVII} 11). 

In the interior of the building the ends of the roof-stones were naturally masked by 
regular courses. East of the uérwzov (p. 174) these blocks were about one-half the thickness 
of the wall, but on the west, in the niche, they were slabs of marble only 0.08 m. thick 
(PLATE XXVIII). These slabs are now missing, but dowel cuttings and pry holes show 
that they were three in number (PLATE XV, section looking south, course 4in niche). They 
were laid from east to west, the last being dropped into a slot. 

The work of laying the roof-stones began with the westernmost, as is shown by the 
position of the dowels (PLatE X XVII, 10), —a fact which proves conclusively that this 
stone is contemporary with the others, in spite of the less finished workmanship on its 
upper surface close to the wall. There are shift holes at the inner end of the second and 
fourth roof-stones from the west. 

As the upper surface of these stones had but a slight inclination, and as the under surface 
had painted decoration, it was necessary to adopt some method for preventing the water 
from percolating through the three vertical joints of the roof. The ingenious solution of 
this problem is shown in PLate X XVII, 1 and 2. On each stone there is a series of three 
inclined cuttings in the upper contact band of each side. When the stones were brought to- 
gether there would thus be formed a series of three cavities at each joint. At the upper end 
of each cavity it must be assumed that there was an opening from above, as is indicated by 
dotted lines, although the stones are now so broken that nothing can be seen. Molten lead 
poured through these openings would fill the cavities, forming a ‘‘spline” which effectually 
sealed the joint. Apparently lead alone was used, as there is no trace of the oxidization of 

1 Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 90, argues from this cutting away of stones already laid that the Porch of the Maidens 


in its present form was an addition to the original design, and was substituted for a simpler portico, the construction 
of which would have involved no alteration. 


DESCRIPTION 115 


iron regularly found in cuttings for clamps and dowels. It was probably fear that the lead 
might cool before the end of a long channel was reached, that caused the cutting of three 
short cavities rather than a single long one. 

The width of the dentils and of the space between them so varies from stone to stone on 
the south side as to prevent a joint falling anywhere except at the side of a dentil; thus on 
the eastern stone the dentils are 0.062 m. wide, and the spaces 0.051 m.; on the next stone 
the respective widths are 0.065 m. and 0.0515 m.; on the third they are 0.068 m. and 
0.045 m.; and on the western stone 0.069 m. and 0.051 m. (PLatz X XVII, 10). 

The leaf-and-tongue ornament on the cornice above the dentils is so spaced that a 
tongue is regularly divided down its centre at each joint, thus conforming to the usual 
Greek practice in the spacing of the carving on the bed moulding of large cornices. 

The curve of the soffit of the cornice, when plotted, proves to be a parabola, with a focal 
distance of 0.005m. The focus is on the horizontal line drawn through the bottom of the 
drip. The axis is inclined inward and downward about one-ninth of a right angle. 

Two small fragments, broken from the outer end of a roof-stone and now in the Acropolis 
Museum, show that the crowning mouldings consisted of an egg-and-dart with a bead-and- 
reel above (PLATE X XVI), as drawn by Stuart and Revett, who have been generally fol- 
lowed, though some, like Bithlmann,? have omitted the bead-and-reel. On the stones still 
in situ no trace of this bead-and-reel remains. The same two fragments show, better than 
any part of the moulding still on the building, how at regular intervals the space between an 
egg and a dart was pierced to discharge the water from the roof of the porch (PLatm XXVI).’ 
A drip moulding runs directly under the openings. The spouts were closer together (one 
every three eggs) on the south than on the east side (one every five eggs). On the west side 
it is certain that they were lacking (PLATE X XVII, 11).* 

The roof is a warped surface, sloping toward the east, south, and west from its highest 
point, at the middle of the north side, where it is raised above the bed of the wall (PLaTE 
XXVII, 2). This is structurally bad, because water would tend to gather in the joint be- 
tween the roof and the wall, instead of flowing off the roof. At the outer angles the rear of 
the crowning moulding is reinforced as if for small acroteria, but the surface here is badly 
battered, and no traces now exist of any cuttings for dowels (PLare X XVII, 11). 

The stones of the roof were considerably lightened in weight by the coffers which were 
cut in their under surface to decorate the ceiling (Fig. 69). The arrangement of the coffers 
is so planned that the joints of the stones fall at the side of a bead-and-reel, and the jointing 
is thus effectually concealed. The coffers all have the same length from north to south, but 

1 Compare the curve of the soffit of the cornice on the North Portico; p. 93, and Fig. 61. 

2 Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. II, pls. XVI and XVII; Bihlmann, Architektur des klassischen Alterthums, pl. XVII. 

3 A similar arrangement for the escape of water is found in the sima of the east part of the central hall of the 
Propylaea. Cf. Bohn, Propylaeen, p. 20, pl. XIV. 


4 The moulding along this side is very badly damaged, but enough of the upper surface of the ceiling block is 
preserved to show the absence of the little gutters, which on the other two sides lead to the spouts. 


CORNICE 


COFFERS 


FLOOR 


116 THE ERECHTHEUM 


from east to west the dimensions vary as a result of the variation in the width of the roof- 
stones (PLATE X XVII, 10; Fig. 69). The change is also indicated by the number of painted 
eggs on the mouldings in successive rows of coffers. The west row of coffers is square, and 
its three tiers of eggs have respectively 10, 8, and 6 eggs on a side; the second, third, fourth, 
and eighth (east) rows have 9, 7, and 5 eggs, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh rows have 8, 
6, and 4 eggs on the north and south sides, but all have 10, 8, and 6 eggs on the east and 
west. The fifth, sixth, and seventh rows also differ from the others in the treatment of the 
corners by omitting a tongue on each side of the small palmette at the angle (PLaTE XXVII, 
3). The ground of the second, third, fourth, and eighth rows of coffers is cut in the form 
of a flat cloistered vault (PLATE X XVI); that of the rest seems to be flat. In no case were 
any traces of a painted ornament observed on the ground of the coffers.! If the ground were 
left plain, the difference in the width of the coffers would be less noticeable. The bead-and- 
reel ornament by which each coffer was framed, was surrounded by a narrow band of color, 
and a similar band was applied midway between the coffers (PLATE X XVI). 

Although the floor of the porch disappeared long ago (Fig. 70), it is certain that it once 
extended around the stairs leading down into the main building. In course 14 of the south 
wall, west of the doorway, are an anathyrosis and a scratched line (PLATE VII), which are 
continued also across the great stone on the west side of the porch (PLatTE X), and plainly 
mark the position of abutting slabs of the pavement. The same line is visible along the south 
and east sides, though on the east the surface of the course is so broken that only a few 
traces of the floor level can now be detected. The surface of the pavement was 0.244 m. 
below the bottom of the podium, as measured on the great stone, and 0.04 m. below the top 
of the upper step on the south and east (PLATE X XVI). This course projects in the interior 
0.05 m. beyond the face of the course above, so that there was a slight jog at the bottom of 
the wall on both south and east (PLATE XXVIII). 

In the eastern part of the south side of the block in course 15 west of the doorway are 
two cuttings for 4 clamps running north and south (PLATE VII).2. The surface below 
the clamps is somewhat roughly dressed and on the east there is a trace of anathyrosis. 
Clearly the clamps held a block about two Attic feet in width, which abutted here and helped 
to support the pavement above. The western part of the block in the wall, for a width of 
about 0.32 m., projects some 0.09 m. farther than the eastern, and its south face is more 
smoothly dressed without any trace of contact. It would seem, therefore, that the paving 
slab here spanned a gap about a foot wide between the great stone and the block farther 
east. The existence of such a gap below the pavement is confirmed by the presence on the 


1H. Metzger, ‘Ueber altgriechische Baukunst,’ Kwnstblatt, 1833, No. 24, p. 95, “Im Pandroseum sind in den 
Cassetten aufgemalte Sterne, Grecques, Kier und Herzlaub zu sehen.” A. R. Rangabé, Ant. hellén., I, p. 62, ‘‘Dans 
le fond de chacun on voit encore une grande étoile en couleurs.”’ See also the other testimony on traces of color in the 
Erechtheum, Ch. II, Note C, pp. 227 ff. 

2 These clamps are respectively 0.175 m. and 0.51 m. west of the doorway. The east half of the west cutting and 
the whole of the east cutting are now concealed by a modern block, omitted in the plate in order to show the cuttings. 
They were visible in 1908 and were then measured. 


(6061 


‘6 


93 HOUVIN) MOTAM WOUd ‘ONITIGO :SNACIVW AHL JO HOWOd “69 aun] 


[117] 


DOORWAY 


118 THE ERECHTHEUM 


great stone, close to the wall, of a drafted band which runs from the bottom of the stone to 
the depressed part of the anathyrosis, and plainly shows that nothing was here in contact 
with the stone. In course 16 of the wall the south side of the block is broken away, but there 
are no traces of clamps in the top, and the present surface projects beyond the plane of the 
wall (Fig. 79). The block doubtless extended farther south originally and probably broke 
joints with the courses above and below. Course 17 is also poorly preserved, but a roughly 


Figure 70. PORCH OF THE MAIDENS: INTERIOR, FROM EAST (1922) 


picked surface about 0.35 m. wide and a clamp cutting 0.14 m. west of the doorway suggest 
that here once abutted a block about one foot wide. The evidence for a complete reconstruc- 
tion is obviously somewhat defective, but from the facts just described, we are warranted in 
concluding that the opening in which the stairs descended was closed on both south and 
west by a wall (PLatre XXVIII), which on the west aided in supporting the pavement, but 
on the south can have been little more than a facing hiding the foundation of the Old 
Temple. 

The lintel over the doorway from the porch into the main building is a large stone, ex- 
tending from the south wall east of the door to the great block over the Cecropium, and 
supporting the western end of the south wall (p. 13). To receive this block the adjacent 
orthostate was cut down at its west end to the height of an ordinary wall block (PLarsE VII). 


DESCRIPTION 119 


That the jointing on either side in the interior of the temple might appear symmetrical above 
the door, the north face of the lintel was formed of two thin slabs, 0.15 m. thick and two 
courses high, which were clamped on top to the main lintel. The short western slab is in 
place, since it forms part of the west end of the south wall, but the longer one over the door 
has disappeared (PLates IV, XII; Fig. 99). It is possible that the latter stone was given 
some architectural decoration in harmony with the pilasters below. On the south side of the 
door there is no indication of jambs, except immediately below the lintel, where moulded 
capitals and the beginnings of flat pilasters, 0.331 m. or about one Attic foot wide (PLATES 
VII, XXVI, 6; Fig. 70), are cut on the blocks of the wall. The mouldings were carried 
through the opening and returned as capitals around flat pilasters of about the same width 
as those outside, which thus marked the jambs on the inner (north) face of the door (PLATE 
XV). Later, either in connection with the Roman repairs, or possibly at the time of the 
transformation of the Erechtheum into a church, these jambs on the inside were cut down 
to about three-fourths of their original width, and given new capitals worked on separate 
blocks, for which sockets were somewhat rudely cut in course 13 (PLATE XII). Traces of 
the original width of the jambs are still preserved in the following places (PLATE XII) :—at 
the bottom of the orthostate east of the door a projecting surface 0.318 m. wide! extends 
to a height of 0.18 m., is then narrowed to 0.245—0.25 m. by chiselling much like that found 
in the Roman repairs, and is traceable for about 0.30 m. higher; a similar surface with a 
projection of 0.015 m. and a width of 0.32 m. is preserved in the same course on the west of 
the doorway to a height of 0.15 m. and is traceable for about 0.33 m. higher; in course 17 
(PLATE XII) east of the doorway, are “indications that a projecting surface with its east. 
edge about 0.32 m. from the opening has been trimmed away, though the block is too much 
damaged to show how far to the west this operation was continued. To the later alterations 
belong the sinkings in the sill for the pivots of a door. No traces of an original Greek door 
have been found. The sides of the opening are inclined at the rate of 0.009 m. per metre. 


XII. Tur PANDROSEUM 


The presence of the small door in the North Portico suggests that in Greek times the 
area west of the Erechtheum did not lie entirely open on the north and west as it does to-day. 
Such an entrance would be unintelligible unless it led into an enclosed precinct, and when 
we find that in the inscriptions the west wall and its parts are regularly described as lying 
mpos Tod Iavdpoceiov 2 and that Pausanias mentions the shrine of Pandrosus as adjoining 
that of Athena,’ it seems clear that this precinct was the Pandroseum. This area has suf- 
fered greatly in the course of time, but existing remains at its northeast corner, in the angle 


1 This surface projects 0.02 m. from the finished band of drafting at the foot of the orthostate and 0.015 m. from 


the unfinished protecting surface (Werkzoll) above. 
2 See, for example, Ch. IV, Inscriptions II, col. 1, 1. 45, col. 1, 1. 63; X, col. 1, 1. 20, col. u, 1. 27; XI, col. 11, 1. 33. 


3 Pausanias, I, 27, 2. 


ENTRANCE 


NORTH 
BOUNDARY 


EARLY 
ENTRANCE 


120 THE ERECHTHEUM 


formed by the North Portico and the west wall of the Erechtheum, afford considerable in- 
formation as to conditions here in the fifth century B.c. 

From the south side of the pier at the southwest corner of the North Portico, a wall 
0.517 m. thick, consisting of an orthostate and three courses of plinths, extends to the south 
for a distance of 0.645 m. In the three courses above the orthostate the pier and the wall are 
formed on a single block. The orthostate of the pier is worked on two blocks, the southern 
of which is also the orthostate of the wall (Figs. 36, 71); the joint between these two blocks 
passes to the south of the recess on the west face of the pier and through the angle formed 
by the side of the door and the wall.1 The passage between the short wall and the west 
wall of the Erechtheum, whereby the Pandroseum was entered from the North Portico, 
was covered with a roof formed by a marble slab, 1.02 m. wide from north to south (PLATES 
IV, XI, XIII, XV, XX, 8, XXXV, 1; Figs. 37, 39). This slab is set into the pier of the 
North Portico for a distance of 0.103 m., with the same bearing on the top of the short 
wall south of the pier, and into the west wall for 0.19 m.; above the door the slab does not 
enter the wall, though the latter overlaps the upper edge of the slab by 0.005 m. (PLaTE 
XX, 8; Fig. 39). The upper surface of this roof slopes slightly to the south in order to 
throw the rain away from the north wall. 

The short wall projecting from the pier ends abruptly in an oblique line which is con- 
tinued on the west by the steps and foundation of the North Portico and on the east by the 
sill of the small door (PuaTE IT; Fig. 36). The lowest course of the poros foundation of the 
portico * projects on the south beyond the courses above, the projection increasing toward 
the east (Fig. 71, 8). The poros block in the next course at the corner has anathyrosis on the 
south side, and this is also true of the three steps and the short wall above; moreover, the 
middle and upper steps are dressed to varying vertical planes (Fig. 71). All these signs 
show plainly that these blocks were here in contact with a wall which formed the northern 
boundary of the Pandroseum. 

Farther east, beneath the lowest step of the west wall, is a block of marble (Figs. 71, 3, 
72, 3) with the smooth dressing of a visible surface on its north side and on top, although 
both these faces were concealed. At the bottom of the north side is a drafted band about 
0.055 m. high, such as is often found at the bottom of steps. The west end of this block 
has anathyrosis, and in the south side (not the top) are the remains of the =| clamp by 
which the adjoining block, now missing, was secured (Fig. 72). The south side is roughly 
dressed without anathyrosis, and was, therefore, not in contact with another block, but 

1 The bottom of the orthostate follows the line of the pier and wall, returning east 0.825 m. and then south 
(Figs. 36, 71). At the base of the wall the torus is reeded, instead of having the guilloche, thus resembling the north 
wall east of the portico. The moulded course below the orthostate, consisting of the scotia and the lower torus, was 
not returned around the south side of the pier and along the base of the wall, but continued on the same line as the 
mouldings on the western face of the anta between the two projections (Fig. 36). This course is, however, badly 
broken south of the pier, only about 0.12 m. being actually preserved out of about 0.65 m., measured in the scotia. 


* This foundation generally rests on the native rock, but the second block from the southwest corner is supported 
in part by two small stones which fill a hollow in the rock. 


(FI6GL 


© 


SL TIudv) UANUOO LSVAHLYON :WOdSOUd 


NVd 


I 


L TaN 


42%) 


122 THE ERECHTHEUM 


probably hidden by earth.! The northern part of this block rests on and is firmly dowelled to 
another marble block (Figs. 71, 4, 72, 4), which projects about 0.04 m. beyond its northern 
face.2 Anathyrosis on the west 
end of this lower block and a 
cutting fora 4 clamp in its 
top (Fig. 73) show that the 
course continued westward, 
and the abutting stone has 
been recognized and replaced 
“Somooston” (Fig. 36).? The marble block 
ie (Fig. 72, 4) is supported at its 
ope ; eastern end by a block of poros (Figs. 
71,6, 72, 6), which is also part of the 
original construction, as is evident 
from the manner in which the greater 
part of the north face has been cut 
back to the line of the course above 
in order to receive the poros backer of 
the bottom step of the North Portico 
(Figs. 39, 72). The southeastern part 
Pie of this block rests on earth, which was 
eat «" found in 1914 to contain only Helladie 
Be ? : ih = ee potsherds and which had evidently re- 
Se eee mained undisturbed since very early 


LEVEL OF ENTRANCE PLATFORM TO PANDROSEUM 


LEVEL OF 
NORTH PORCH 
FLOOR. 


Y Z 
Toror at yy 


NORTH PORCH ANN 


THREE STERS AT BASEL 
OF WEST WALL OF ERECHTHEUM 


oa era 


x 
ee Mo AWAY 
ror oF Lowest SESS SS 


reorunest SAWN , 


EUTHYNTERIA: “\, 


APPROXIMATE 
GRADE LEVEL 


: a : « times. The northwestern part is supported 
oe ° by ablock of poros (Figs. 71, 7, 72, 7) which in 
“—~ turn rests on the projection of the foundation of 
the North Portico (Figs. 71, 8, 72,8). Both the 


1 The poros block now on this side was inserted when the 


WZ Marble - Erechtheum was built. 
In section ~ —, * Inelevation 2 The south side of the lower marble block has been broken 
eats haa away, and itis backed bya poros block cut to fit the broken edge 
oN? Rea (Fig. 72, 5). The break, therefore, seems to have occurred be- 


fore the marble was laid, since there can be no doubt that the 
poros backer is part of the original construction. See L. B. 
FicurRE 72. PANDROSEUM: SECTION THROUGH ~ Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, I,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, 
FOUNDATIONS BENEATH ENTRANCE FROM pp. 10-12. 
NORTH PORTICO, LOOKING EAST 


° scale. Bg 


3 The identification is proved by the correspondence in the 
cuttings for the 4 clamp in both blocks; by the adaptation 
of the steps of the North Portico to the north face of the new stone; and by the agreement of a setting line on its 
top with the east end of the block with the water channel, the position of which is assured by the cutting for the 
spout in the upper step of the North Portico. East of the setting line is a cutting for a dowel which held the missing 
block east of the stone with the water channel. The latter has dowel cuttings at both ends, but it is certain that the 
one at the east end was never used. 


DESCRIPTION 123 


upper and lower joints of this second poros block (Fig. 72, 7) are filled with lead. The expla- 
nation of these conditions is not far to seek. The two marble blocks, Figure 72, 3 and 4, are 
the undisturbed remains of the threshold and euthynteria of an earlier entrance at the same 
point as the later.1 Since there was no great weight to be supported, a single course of poros 


(Fig. 72, 6), resting on earth, was a sufficient foundation beneath the euthynteria. When- 


the Erechtheum was built a stronger support was deemed necessary, and was secured by 
extending the foundations of the North Portico (Fig. 72, 8) a short distance under the earlier 
construction. Upon the shelf thus formed the poros block (Fig. 72,7) was inserted as the 
earth was removed, and the new support made thoroughly secure by pouring molten lead 
into both upper and lower joints.? 

West of the old entrance the wall of the precinct seems to have rested upon the rock, 
and poros blocks from its foundation are still in place about 4 m. west of the North Portico 
(PLATE I). They rest on a rock-cut bed which extends for about 10 m. to the west, where it 
turns to the south and can be traced for about 3m. more (PLaTE I). The height of this 
wall was probably the same as that of the short wall projecting from the pier of the North 
Portico, with a coping on the top at the level of the slab over the northwest door. 

With this wall are also connected certain peculiar cuttings in the upper and middle steps 
of the North Portico, first noted and rightly interpreted by Boétticher.* In the south end of 
the upper step is a rectangular cutting (Fig. 71). In the top of the middle step there is a 
round depression, in part directly under this cutting (PLaTE VIII, 1, section; 2, plan). From 
this depression a hole, 0.04 m. in diameter, leads, with a slight fall, to the west face of the 
step, where it formerly ended in a spout now broken away. Above this hole the marble has 
been roughly cut out, probably in removing a metal pipe, which ran from the depression to 
the spout. The traces of lead and bronze, which Botticher (op. cit. p. 212) detected in the 
hole and inferred were due to a bronze pipe set in lead, are no longer visible. Beneath the 
spout the face of the lowest step lacks its final dressing, and it is possible that it was con- 
cealed by a basin to catch the water. The block from the wall (Puats VIII, 3; Fig. 73) ° 
against which the middle and upper steps of the Portico were laid, also identified by Bét- 
ticher, has now been replaced (Figs. 36, 37, 234). In the upper surface is a channel ending in 
a projecting spout, which exactly fits the rectangular cutting in the upper step of the North 
Portico. When thus placed the top of the block aligns with the top of the depressed lower 
half of the step, while the drafted band at the bottom fits against the raised strip across the 


1 The assignment of these blocks to an earlier entrance is due to L. B. Holland; see A.J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 10. 

2 A similar process was employed in the interior along the base of the north wall; see pp. 6, 142. Since molten 
lead expands in cooling, both joints were thus made thoroughly firm and tight. 

3 Some of these blocks have been reddened by fire, and this suggests that they have been taken from buildings 
burned by the Persians. Another block, which in 1905 was lying near the steps of the North Portico, has disappeared. 
It is uncertain whether it was then in its original position. 

4 Untersuchungen, pp. 209-2138; figs. 39-43. 

5 The photograph, taken in April, 1918, shows the stone with the spout placed upon the block from the course 
below in the wall of the Pandroseum. 


WATER 
CHANNEL 


124 THE ERECHTHEUM 


middle step (PLare VIII, 1, 2). Cuttings in its upper surface for clamps, a dowel, and a pry 
hole, no less than the dressing, prove that the block formed part of a wall, not of a pavement.! 


Figure 73. PANDROSEUM: NORTH FACE OF TWO BLOCKS FROM NORTH WALL, NOW REPLACED 
(APRIL 4, 1918) 


The upper block shows the remains of the spout through which water was drained from the sacred precinct 


ert 


K-, 


Another stone with a similar channel (Fig. 75) now lies near in the Pandroseum (Fig. 
37).” This stone, however, differs from the other in the depth of the channel, which slopes 
from 0.045 m. to 0.05 m., as compared with 0.075 m. on the south face of the first stone. 

1 Another stone from the wall now (1924) lies north of the North Portico (Fig. 74). It has on top a dowel hole 
near the centre, and at either end a cutting, 0.14 m. long, fora clamp. On each of the long faces thereisa slight jog. 


? Also identified by Bétticher, op. cit. p. 212; fig. 43. The fragments seen by him in or near the north wall of 
the Acropolis have not been found. 


DESCRIPTION 125 


On the side where the channel is shallower is a drafted band, 0.075 m. wide, with a projecting 
surface below; on the other face is an anathyrosis, 0.043 m. wide, through which the water 
channel cuts. The surface is broken here, but no traces can be detected of a projecting spout 
such as occurs on the other stone. Moreover this stone has a height of only 0.225 m. as 
against 0.293 m. for the stone from the wall. It seems certain, therefore, that the two stones 
were not in contact, and that, if the inclination of the channel was uniform, the second stone 
originally was placed some distance to the south, perhaps a few feet in front of the west 
door. The purpose of the channel is clear: it was intended to drain the Pandroseum, and 
was cut in the surface of the pavement below the bottom step. 

That the boundary wall with its entrance is earlier than the Erechtheum is plainly evi- 
dent from the manner in which the builders of the latter adapted their work to it, and also 


ute hae eh! Ll ig 
REAR. 
A ,20 eae ot ,S3S ert 


Figure 75. PANDROSEUM: BLOCK WITH WATER 
CHANNEL: ISOMETRIC 


from the striking divergence in orientation. A difference in dates is also indicated by certain 
variations in technique, which assist in assigning individual blocks to their proper period. 
Thus the 4 clamps used in the earlier wall are somewhat smaller than those found in the 
walls of the Erechtheum,’ and a line is scratched to indicate the position of the joints, which 
are not usually marked in this way in the later building. In spite of these slight variations, 
the technique of the earlier work is that of the fifth century B.c., and as none of the marble 
blocks employed show traces of fire or damage on the exposed faces, the wall may with 
great probability be assigned to a restoration of this precinct after the Persian invasion. 
The poros foundation farther west, in which are fire-stained blocks (p. 123, note 3), was 
doubtless laid at the same time. 

Another remnant of the earlier Pandroseum is preserved in a marble block, which pro- 
jects from beneath the lowest step of the west wall in a line parallel to the boundary wall, 


1 The bottom is worn smooth, since the stone was at some time built into a threshold face down; a pivot hole still 
remains in one corner. There isa trace of a dowel cutting in the broken edge of the upper surface (Fig. 75), which 
shows that the stone was covered, at least in part. 

2 On the size of the clamps used in the Erechtheum and the Pandroseum, see Ch. II, pp. 196, 198, note 2. 


126 THE ERECHTHEUM 


about midway between the North Portico and the west door (Puatss II, IV; Figs. 36, 37, 
71,C). Its west end has been broken away. On the north and south faces are drafted bands, 
0.115 m. deep, with a rough projecting surface below. This treatment shows that the block 
was not in contact with other blocks on either side, and suggests that originally it rose a little 
above an unpaved area. Its top, which has the same level as the earlier threshold, is dressed 
as a visible surface, and it may be conjectured that it formed part of a stylobate parallel to 
the enclosing wall. Beneath this stone is a poros block,! which rested on earth. Below, on the 


dak pee 7,075 en 


Ficure 76. PANDROSEUM: BLOCK, APPARENTLY 
FROM PAVEMENT: ISOMETRIC 


The two views show the four sides and the top; the bottom 
is roughly dressed 
native rock, are remains of an Helladic wall. Above the lowest course the foundations of the 
west wall were here cut back a little. In 1914 it was found that for a short distance (about 
0.15 m.) west of these foundations the earth filling contained fragments of fifth century pot- 
tery, while farther west there were only Helladic sherds. A similar stratification was noticed 
to the south, near the west door, in the undisturbed earth beneath the lowest step of the 
west wall (Fig. 38, 3, 4). It would seem that before the building of the Erechtheum there 
were no deep foundations in the eastern part of the Pandroseum, and that in erecting the 
new temple the existing conditions were disturbed as little as possible. Apart from con- 


1 The wall under the western end of this poros block is modern. 


DESCRIPTION 127 


cealing the old entrance and the blocks to the south of it beneath the steps of the west wall, 
the only change known to us was the laying of a marble pavement, and even this was kept at 
the old level, since it seems to have incorporated the blocks in which had been cut the 
earlier water channel. 

In June, 1910, a block (Fig. 76), apparently belonging to this area, was found buried 
almost directly in front of the west door. It is of the same height as the bottom step of the 
west wall, and the clamps are of the size used in the Erechtheum proper, but as yet no 
satisfactory explanation has been given of the varieties of dressing on its sides and top,! nor 


Fiegure 77. BLOCK, PROBABLY FROM PANDROSEUM: 
ISOMETRIC 


has it been possible to determine its original position. Still another block which is very 
probably from the Pandroseum is shown in Figure 77. It has the same height to within a 
millimetre as the stone just mentioned (Fig. 76), it shows excellent workmanship, and it has 
the short cuttings for clamps found in the stones from the north wall of this precinct. 


XIII. Tue Crecrorium 2 


At the southwest corner of the Erechtheum numerous irregularities, some of which have 
been already mentioned (pp. 14, 58), suggest the presence of a serious, and perhaps rather 
unexpected, hindrance to normal construction, and, when taken together, permit some fairly 
probable conclusions as to the extent and nature of this obstacle. 


1 At a there is good cutting both at the side and on the bottom; at B is good cutting at the side but a rough 
bottom; at c the side is rougher than at B, and the bottom is similar but a bit deeper; at p the surface is cut back, 
as if to receive an abutting block of the pavement, 0.19 m. to 0.20 m. thick. 

2 This section was in great part written before the appearance of the paper on the Cecropium by the late Professor 
Collignon (‘L’Emplacement du Cécropion 4 |’Acropole d’Athénes,’ Mem. Acad. Insc., XLI, 1916). It is gratifying 
to find that on many points his independent investigations had led him to substantially the same conclusions that we 
had already reached. 


128 THE ERECHTHEUM 


SOUTH END The difficulties evidently began with the foundations. In the west wall the three lowest 
A courses (PLate IV, courses 20, 21, 22) are of marble, instead of the usual poros (probably 


for greater strength, as they were not in sight), and stop about 0.70 m. short of the corner 
(Fig. 78). The ends, though rough, show Greek tooling, and it is quite clear that the blocks 


Ficgurr 78. OPENING UNDER SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE 
ERECHTHEUM, LOOKING EAST (SEPTEMBER 4, 1922) 


were not reduced to their present length in making the later cistern inside the temple. 
Above the foundations the course beneath the orthostates (PLATE IV; Fig. 78) does not 
reach the corner, but it has been broken and certainly once extended to the south wall in the 
interior, where it was visible. The orthostate itself and the two courses above (PLATE IV, 
courses 16-18; Fig. 78) were in contact with the south wall inside the temple, but outside 
were cut back obliquely, though not uniformly (Figs. 78, 79). To compensate for the ab- 
sence of foundations the next three courses (13-15) are here filled by the great block already 
mentioned (p. 58),! which, firmly supported at either end on the west wall and on the eu- 


1 At its south end this block is cut down to receive the southern block in the west face of the podium of the 
Porch of the Maidens (PLATE IV), and its top there ranges with the top of the moulded course at the base of the podium. 


DESCRIPTION 129 


thynteria of the Old Temple, spans the gap and bears the entire weight of this corner.! That 
there was some anxiety as to its strength seems evident from the obvious efforts to reduce 


the strain at this point, as shown, for ex- 
ample, by the reduction in thickness of the 
south wall in the Porch of the Maidens (p. 
113), by the construction of the niche (p. 172), 
and by the probable absence of backers at 
this end of the western tympanum.” 

The conditions in the south wall are sim- 
ilar to those just described. West of the east 
jamb of the doorway from the Porch of the 
Maidens little remains below the orthostate 
(Figs. 99, 106), in which the threshold of 
the door is cut (PLATE XII), but there are 
traces of a block below the threshold, and the 
course must have continued to the corner to 
unite with course 19 of the west wall. It was 
probably supported, as we have seen (p. 13), 
by a remnant of prehistoric wall, or by a reg- 
ular foundation which has now disappeared. 
The block which forms the threshold and or- 
thostate is dressed back on its south side 
until it has a thickness of only about 0.50 m. 
as compared with 0.675 m. in the wall above 
(Piatus IV, IX, X; Fig. 79), and at its west 
end has a slight vertical jog (Figs. 78, 79). The 
two courses above are cut back obliquely, 
though not in the same line; nor does either 
oblique cutting continue the line of the block 
ranging with it in the west wall (Fig. 79). 


Above this line the surface of the block is dressed back 
slightly to the plane of the podium as far as the west anta 
of the porch. The shaft and base of this anta are also 
carved on this stone, and the west end of the south wall 
is indicated by a band slightly behind the surface to the 
south and in front of that to the north (Piatess II, a, IV). 


: ‘ 
ieee t,t 


18 


O 1M 
| ress ariel Merde Ue we et ce eek De 


Ficure 79. PLANS OF COURSES 16-18 AT 
SOUTHWEST CORNER 


1 The block cracked under the weight resting upon it, and in 1837 the space beneath was cleared and the block 
supported by a wall of rubble. According to Pittakis (Report Gr. Comm., $15) nothing was found at this time. 
Later a pier of masonry was built beneath the anta, and finally in 1907-1908 all these additions were removed and 
the lintel supported by an iron column (Puatzs IV, VII, X; Fig. 78). In setting this column the rock on the north 
side of its base was slightly cut and then hammered. The dressing here is wholly modern. 

2 See Ch. IV, Inscr. X, col. 11, ll. 27-42, and Commentary, p. 361. 


WEST END 
OF SOUTH 
WALL 


WEST WALL 
SOUTH OF 
DOOR 


130 THE ERECHTHEUM 


These peculiarities of construction are intelligible, if this corner had to be built around 
some obstacle which filled the space beneath the great block in the west wall and, while not 
encroaching upon the interior of the main building, extended beneath the Porch of the Maid- 
ens, although it was there doubtless concealed from view by the pavement of the porch and by 
the wall at the west side of the stairs which led down into the temple (PLATts XXVIII). The 
fact that the blocks in both west and south walls are not dressed to a uniform oblique line 
indicates that they were cut rather to avoid contact with this obstacle, whatever its nature, 
than to fit accurately against it. The same protective care was apparently exercised in the 
Porch of the Maidens, where there was a narrow gap between the great block and the wall 
west of the stairway (p. 116), while a similar space was perhaps left below the great block 
itself, — at least the fairly smooth dressing given to its under surface suggests the possibil- 
ity that it was not in contact with another stone or with earth. 

Turning now to the outside we find clear proof that this obstruction continued as far as 
the south side of the door in the west wall (PLatr IV; Fig. 80). Its presence accounts for 
the absence of steps at this part of the temple, where the course below the orthostates pro- 
jects beyond the face of the wall only in the block forming part of the threshold and is 
everywhere left rough.! The lack of the final dressing on the face of the stones above this 
course (p. 58) suggests that this part of the building, too, was concealed in some way, — a 
suggestion confirmed by an examination of the lintel itself. Here, in the lower corner on the 
right, is a slightly raised surface, with distinctly marked limits above and to the left, which 
can also be traced on the next block to the south in course 14 (PLatE IV). It would seem 
that, when most of the lintel, the block in course 13, and the great block received their final 
dressing and were given a uniform smooth surface, this corner remained dxataéeoros, be- 
cause it was covered by something which left no interval sufficient to admit a tool. 

To the influence of this somewhat mysterious structure may also be traced some peculi- 
arities in the construction of this corner above the west wall. On the moulding which con- 
nects the base of the south anta with the base of the adjacent column and on the base of the 
column itself the upper torus is without the reeding which it is given elsewhere in this 
course.” The anthemion on the west face of the anta is not continued on the north face, 
which is here smooth, and in courses 5 and 7 a boss has been left on the west end of the 
blocks of the south wall (PLare IV). Furthermore, the mouldings of the cornice and of the 
top of the podium at the north end of the west side of the Porch of the Maidens are not 
returned against the southwest corner of the main building but abruptly cut off (Fig. 81), 
which is certainly clumsy. The lack of finish shown in these details would appear to indicate 
that this part of the building was more or less screened from view. 

Some writers have supposed that it was the shrine of Pandrosus which thus hampered 

1 In the second course below the threshold the stone is so cut as to suggest that it was fitted around a block al- 


ready in place (Puats IV; Fig. 80). 
* The upper torus of both antae is without reeding. 


( 


FIG 


. 


I TIUdV) Isa 


MHLYON WOU ‘ANG 


HLONOS AO NOILYOd HAMOT : TIVM LSAM ‘08 TANI 


[ 131 ] 


SOUTHERN 
PRECINCT 
WALL 


132 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the builders of the Erechtheum.! The language of the inscriptions,” which is not in any way 
contradicted by the other evidence,’ leads rather to the inference that this was the site of 
the Cecropium, and that it was the legendary tomb of Cecrops with its surrounding temenos, 
which was partly under and partly outside this corner of the Erechtheum. It is interesting 
to recall that none of the water which collected on the roof of the Porch of the Maidens was 
permitted to escape on the west side (p. 115). 

On the south this sacred precinct was enclosed by a wall which has left unmistakable 
traces on the steps and podium of the west side of the porch of the Maidens. Tooling on 


Ficurr 81. PORCH OF THE MAIDENS: JUNCTION OF ARCHITRAVE 
AND CORNICE WITH SOUTHWEST ANTA OF MAIN BUILDING 


the lowest step shows that its direction here was not at right angles to the porch, but parallel 
with the axis of the Old Temple of Athena, and in fact it was laid directly on the old stylobate, 
and its north face coincides with the edge of the latter. Moreover, the surface of the middle 
step of the porch is cut down to form a bed at the same level as the top of this stylobate, 


1 This view has been maintained, for example, by Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., II, 1877, p. 34 (abandoned later, see 
J.—M., Atlas, pl. XX); Julius, Hrechtheion, p. 12; Frazer, Pausanias, I, p. 337; Weller, A. J. A., XXV, 1921, p. 140. 

2 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 9, 59, 63, 84. 

3 The only definite references to the Cecropium are found in the inscriptions connected with the building of the 
Erechtheum cited in the preceding note. Apart from these passages the word is found only in the Hecatompedon 
inscription (Ch. V, p. 440), where it has been restored with a high degree of probability. Decrees of the fourth century 
B.c., in honor of the ephebi of the tribe Cecropis, provide for the erection of inscribed stelae & 7 70d Kéxporos iep@ 
(I. G. II, 5, 563, b, dated 334-33 B.c.; 563, d, e conj.), and a priest of Cecrops appears in the list of the Amynandridae 
(I. G. III, 1276, 1. 8) inscribed on the block from the boundary wail. The tomb of Cecrops on the Acropolis (& 77 
éxporode) is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus, III, 45) on the authority of ‘‘ Antiochus,” and the 
statement is repeated in somewhat more precise form by Theodoret (Graec. affect. cur., VIII, 30: rapa ri Tododxov 
avrnv) and Arnobius (adv. nat. VI, 6: “in Minervio’’). Obviously none of these later references throws any light on the 
situation of the iepov or the tomb. If the position assigned to the Cecropium in the text is accepted, we may suppose 
that the sacred precinct was on the terrace north of the Old Temple, while the legendary tomb was underground at 
the southwest corner of the Erechtheum, and probably extended beneath the great block in the west wall. 


DESCRIPTION 133 


and the upper step ends at the south edge of this bed. There is nothing left to show how 
far the wall extended to the west. The vertical traces of its contact with the podium and 
the great stone below are about 0.675 m. apart, and this is also the approximate thickness 
of two blocks (Figs. 82, 83, 84), which have been identified on other grounds as belonging 
to it.! Traces of horizontal joints still visible on the face of the podium and a cutting for a 
key clamp show that the courses composing the wall were for the most part 0.489 m. high. 

Marks of this wall appear as high as the top of the eggs of the podium of the Porch of 
the Maidens, but it was certainly somewhat higher, for the upper surface of the stone which 


BOTTOM A B' OE 


Figuri 82. BLOCK FROM PARAPET SOUTH OF CECROPIUM ABUTTING AGAINST PODIUM OF PORCH 
OF THE MAIDENS: ISOMETRIC. AT A’ AND B’, SECTIONS TAKEN AT A-A AND B-B, SHOWING 
DRESSING OF BLOCK TO FIT MOULDINGS OF PODIUM 


here abutted against the podium (Fig. 82) is dressed as a bed, has dowels at the east end for 
securing a block above, and at the west end a Kk} clamp, which can scarcely have been left 
uncovered. It is, however, probable that the course above was only a coping. The egg-and- 


1 Figs. 82, 83. This block, now lying on the stylobate of the Old Temple close to its original position, is cut at the 
upper right end (a’ and B’) to fit the mouldings on the top of the podium of the Porch of the Maidens (a-a and 
B-B). On the bottom there is a scratch line at right angles to the south face and 0.345 m. from the west end of the 
stone. A boss remains on the south face, while the back has a drafted edge at the bottom and has also not received 
its final dressing. Apparently none of the faces is inclined. The surface of the block shows two styles of dressing, but 
neither seems to be earlier than the Erechtheum. 

Fig. 84. The clamps in the block are of the same size as those used in the Erechtheum, and there is no reason to 
assign the stone to an earlier structure. One face bears the upper part of an inscription (J. G., III, 1276) from the last 
quarter of the first century B.c. containing a catalogue of the Amynandridae, in which the priest of Cecrops occupies 
the second place. The condition of the stone makes it difficult to determine accurately whether the faces are in- 
clined, but the inscribed side seems to have the upper angle obtuse and a slope of about 0.001 m. in 0.300 m., while 
the face on the right may also have a slight batter with the upper angle acute. The original position of the block 
is uncertain, though the correspondence in width and height with the stone just described (Fig. 82) renders it 
extremely probable that it is from this wall. It is, however, not from the bottom, for the inscription was continued on 
the block below, and clamps and a dowel in the upper surface prove that it is not from the top course. The dressing 
shows that both sides and one end were exposed, and there 1s also a T-dowel in the top, implying a position either at 
one side of an opening or at the end of a wall. If the inscription faced the south, where it could be easily read, the 


NORTHERN 
BOUNDARY 


134 THE ERECHTHEUM 


dart pattern on the upper moulding of the podium was left uncut north of the south face of 
the wall.! 

The northern boundary of the Cecropium is not so sure as PLatE I might perhaps seem 
to imply. All that is certainly known is the approximate point at which it started, close 


FicurEe 83. PHOTOGRAPH OF BLOCK DRAWN IN FIGURE 82 


to the west wall of the Erechtheum, south of the door. Its exact direction is a matter of 
inference only. It has been drawn parallel with the north wall of the Pandroseum and the 


stone would have been on the west side of an opening in the wall; if, however, the inscription was within the Cecropium, 
as is not improbable in view of the connection of the family with the cult of Cecrops through the hereditary priesthood, 
the stone might come either from the east side of an opening or from the west end of the wall. In the latter case it 
would furnish proof that the wall did not turn to the north at the end, since it is clear that nothing covered the inscribed 
face. Since such an ending of the wall does not seem very probable, it is perhaps preferable to assign it to one side of 
an opening. It is natural to suppose that there was access to the Cecropium from the terrace of the Old Temple. 

1 A third block (Fig. 85) may perhaps be connected with this wall. One long side has anathyrosis on the top, the 
other has a boss, and was therefore exposed. The two ends are dressed smooth, without anathyrosis, though, if they 
were not covered, two dowel cuttings were left visible. These cuttings are in the top at one end and in the bottom at the 
other; the latter is accompanied by a shift hole to aid in setting the stone. A third dowel cutting, near the middle 
of the upper surface, seems to have held a block two Attic feet long, if the end with the shift hole was exposed, or 
four feet long, if that end was covered. The height of the stone is the same as that of the steps about the Porch of the 
Maidens. It is possible that the steps of the porch were continued along the base of the wall, or that the stone 
formed part of the pavement within the porch. Its connection with the Erechtheum seems certain, not only from its 
height, but also from the character of the shift hole, pry hole, and cuttings for dowels, but its exact position remains 
uncertain. 


REAR FINISHED AS AN EXPOSED FACE 


eZ. 


(NS CRIP ‘harem 
CLE BL 
5 LINE 


SOE 


DOWEL CUTTING et ‘i 
yOSS BEEP /*! 
mit glace ss > 06 


BOTTOM 


Figure 84. INSCRIBED BLOCK FROM WALL OF CECROPIUM: ISOMETRIC 


Figure 85. BLOCK PROBABLY FROM WALL OF CECROPIUM OR FROM PORCH OF THE MAIDENS: ISOMETRIC 


[ 135 ] 


STEREOBATE 
OF OLD 
TEMPLE 


136 THE ERECHTHEUM 


early blocks which project from beneath the steps of the west wall (PLATE I); but the possi- 
bility that it was parallel with the southern boundary, the terrace of the Old Temple, cannot 
be excluded. Absolutely nothing is known of the thickness of the wall, but it may be re- 
garded as almost certain that the lower part, reaching perhaps to the level of the euthyn- 
teria of the Old Temple, was the retaining wall of a terrace. Above was probably a parapet, 
such as formed the southern boundary west of the Porch of the Maidens, and the outline on 
the lintel of the west door suggests that this parapet was crowned by a projecting coping or 
cornice. The extension of the parapet to the west is also unknown, for the Cecropium need 
not have occupied the entire extent of the terrace which masked the foundations of the Old 
Temple. On the east it was bounded by the west wall of the Erechtheum and the Porch of 
the Maidens. The southern boundary was doubtless formed by the terrace of the Old 
Temple and the wall above. 

Thus far the evidence concerning the Cecropium has been drawn from the Erechtheum; 
it remains to notice certain facts which throw some light on conditions before the temple 
was built. The stones composing the stereobate of the Old Temple west of the Erechtheum 
have a rough and unfinished surface, which it is hard to believe would have been left visible 
even in the sixth century,' and this roughness continues beneath the Porch of the Maidens 
to a point nearly opposite the east jamb of the door into the temple, that is, to about the 
western limit of the original solid foundation of the south wall of the Erechtheum. From 
this point eastward, so far as examination is possible (about 2.25 m.), the face of the stereo- 
bate has been dressed smooth (Fig. 78). Such a difference in treatment indicates that, while 
the terrace of the Cecropium concealed the western part of the foundation wall, the eastern, 
before the Erechtheum was built, was visible, probably for a considerable distance, though 
the exact limits cannot, of course, be fixed with certainty. 

Although the facts which have been presented are not sufficient to warrant any detailed 
reconstruction, it is perhaps permissible to draw the following conclusions as to the condi- 
tions which confronted the builders of the Erechtheum. On the north side of the Old 
Temple was a terrace or precinct having at its eastern end something which was later be- 
lieved to be the tomb of Cecrops. The appearance of this monument is unknown, but it can 
hardly have been of stone on the outside, since it is improbable that the Erechtheum would 
have been so planned as to bring its corner on a spot already occupied by a solid structure of 
so sacred a character. It seems more likely that only a mound of earth was visible and that 
it was not until an attempt was made to lay foundations that something more solid was dis- 
covered — perhaps a corner of the old ‘‘ Mycenaean”’ palace,” the walls of which must have 


1 For the probable extent of the terraces on the north and west of the Old Temple, see Dérpfeld in J.-M., Adlas, 
pls. XXVI, XXVII, e, f; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 37. 

2 There is, of course, no need to suppose that a grave had ever existed at this spot. The name of Cecrops could 
easily be attached to any bit of masonry or mound that suggested a tomb. For the early walls, see Cavvadias and 
Kawerau, pl. [’; L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, II,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 161 ff,, pl. VII, fig. 13. See 
also Ch. V, pp. 427 ff. 


DESCRIPTION 137 


had an orientation agreeing fairly closely with that of the Pandroseum, — to which, since it 
could not be removed, the builders were compelled to adapt their construction as best they 
could, even perhaps to placing the west wall two feet farther east than they had eriginally 
intended (p. 167). 


XIV. Tue INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING 


Certain features of the interior, such as the foundations and the inside of the western 
fagade, have already been described, since their close connection with corresponding por- 
tions of the exterior rendered a separate treatment undesirable, while the reconstruction of 
the ceilings, as depending wholly on epigraphical evidence, is discussed in the commentary 
on the inscriptions (pp. 362 ff.; 408 f.). In the present section it is proposed first to examine 
the remains of earlier structures which survived within the new building, and then to con- 
sider the division of the temple into its several parts, their levels, and means of intercom- 
munication, as well as any structural peculiarities confined to the interior. These points 
will be treated under the following headings: 

1. Remains of structures earlier than the Erechtheum. 

2. The East Cella. (a) The cross-wall separating this cella from the western division 
of the temple. (B) The level of the floor in the cella. 

3. The Western Rooms. (A) The western cross-wall, in Greek times and after the 
Roman reconstruction. (8) The central part of the building. (c) The Prostomiaion and 
Erechtheis. (D) The Niche. (£) Temporary repairs before the Roman restoration. 

All architectural evidence as to the arrangement of the interior must now be derived 
from such traces as may remain on the natural rock, in the foundations, and on the side 
walls, or from a study of single scattered stones, since in the transformation of the Erech- 
theum into a Christian church all the ancient interior-east of the western cross-wall, in- 
cluding even the foundations, was destroyed. This evidence, although very scanty, is 
sufficient, when combined with some statements in the inscriptions, to render possible a 
reconstruction which seems fairly certain in essentials, though there are naturally not a 
few details which must remain subject to more or less probable conjecture. 


1. REMAINS OF EARLIER STRUCTURES ” 


Attention has already been called to the probable survival of a prehistoric wall in the 
foundation beneath the threshold of the south door (p. 14), and also to the remains of an 
ancient entrance south of the doorway leading into the Pandroseum from the North Portico 


1 The natural rock does not seem to have been materially affected by the transformation. Certainly it shows not 
the slightest indication of having been hewn and hacked away by the Christians in a deliberate attempt to destroy all 
traces of earlier construction, as is asserted by Bétticher, Untersuchungen, pp. 194-195, and repeated by D’Ooge, 
Acropolis, p. 311. Bétticher seems to have been led to this statement by his failure to find any evidence of the solid 
stereobate, which he wrongly believed to be universal in Greek temples, or of the crypts, which his reconstruction of 
the Erechtheum required. 

2 See L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, I,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924,-pp. 1-23. We are much indebted to Dr. 
Holland for permission to reproduce some of his drawings and photographs. 


ALONG THE 
NORTH 
SIDE 


138 THE ERECHTHEUM 


(p. 123). Moreover, the excavations of 1886 and 1887 brought to light considerable frag- 
ments of Helladic walls south, east, and north of the Erechtheum (Puats I). It is not sur- 
prising, therefore, to find within the Erechtheum itself evidence for the existence of similar 
walls, which seem to have been preserved and probably utilized by the builders of the temple, 
but which have now in great part disappeared. 

This evidence is most abundant along the bottom of the north wall. Against this wall 
at some period after the Roman restoration, but before the alterations due to the Christian 


Figure 86. NORTH WALL: PREHISTORIC REMAINS WITHIN THE TEMPLE, WEST SIDE OF WEST PIER 


church, foundations or piers of concrete were constructed,” two of which are important in 
this connection. One of these is situated about one metre east of the entrance to the crypt 
under the North Portico; the other, some 6.50 m. farther east, now supports the threshold 
and part of the pavement of the Prothesis in the church (Puatss IT, XI, XX XI). On the west 
side of the first pier, at the bottom, a piece of Acropolis limestone abuts against the marble 
jamb of the entrance to the crypt (Figs. 86,1; 88). The north side of this stone has been 
roughly dressed to a vertical plane at its contact with course 23, and a rabbet 0.04—0.05 m. 
wide has been cut in the top to receive the projection of course 22. South of this stone are 


1 See also Cavvadias and Kawerau, Pl. [’’; L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, II,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, 
pin it, 

2 On these masses of concrete see Ch. V, pp. 516 ff. To distinguish them from the foundations of the Erechtheum 
they will be called piers in the following description. 


DESCRIPTION 139 


more uncut pieces of Acropolis limestone, extending about 1.25 m. from the north wall 
(Fig. 86, 2, 3, 4,5), and wholly without any admixture of marble chips and mortar, although 
both are abundant in the concrete above. This of itself suggests that the later pier rests in 
part upon a primitive wall, and the inference is confirmed when we find similar stones, also 


Figure 87. NORTH WALL: PREHISTORIC REMAINS WITHIN THE 
TEMPLE, EAST SIDE OF WEST PIER (SEPTEMBER 2, 1922) 


free from marble or mortar, appearing on the east side of the pier (Figs. 87, 1-5; 88). None 
of these stones has been dressed to fit the foundations of the Erechtheum; on the contrary 
here the poros blocks 2 and 3 of courses 22 and 23 (Fig. 88) have been cut away to a depth 
of at least 0.21 m. to receive a projecting piece of hard black and white stone (Fig. 87, 1), 
of a kind not infrequently used along with the common Acropolis limestone in Helladic 
walls. Since it is out of the question that the builders of the rough pier should have taken 
the trouble to cut this hole in the poros, the conclusion seems certain that the foundations 
of the Erechtheum were here laid against, and in part adapted to, a prehistoric wall. 


140 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Between this pier and the one below the Prothesis no stones of this early wall have re- 
mained in situ, though it is quite possible that some remains were unsuspectingly destroyed 
when the concrete pier on the line of the east cross-wall was removed and the north aisle of 
the church cleared.! There are, however, abundant traces of its former presence in the 
numerous cuttings, sometimes of considerable depth, on the south face of the poros founda- 
tions (Figs. 88, 93); ? for, in view of what is preserved under the western pier, there can be 
no doubt that these cuttings were made to adapt the blocks of the Erechtheum to the 
stones of an irregular wall. Since the poros is softer than the Acropolis limestone, it was 
generally easier to cut the new blocks to fit the projections of the old than to dress back the 
existing wall to the plane of the foundations. 

More of the old wall itself is preserved beneath the eastern pier. At the lower north- 
western corner a piece of Acropolis limestone rests on a slab of the hard black and white 


wk 


e355; Shallow cuttings and breaks gis Prehistoric stones in situ, cut for blocks of wall 


Wl Deeper cuttings and breaks & Prehistoric stone in situ, extending into wall 


Figure 88. NORTH WALL: FOUNDATIONS INSIDE, SHOWING MARKS OF CONTACT WITH 
PREHISTORIC REMAINS: ELEVATION 


stone and this in turn on the native rock (Figs. 88, 89, 1, 2). These two stones and also the 
rock below have plainly been cut to make room for block 9 in course 23, while the piece of 
limestone also has a rabbet along the upper edge to receive the bottom of block 12 in course 
22. East of the pier, from the threshold of the Prothesis to the east wall, the foundations 
of the north wall are to a great extent concealed by rubble and concrete. The upper part of 
this masonry is certainly late, probably mediaeval, but the lower part consists largely of 


1 On these operations see Ch. V, pp. 516, 569. 

2 These marks (PLatTr XI; Fig. 88) may be briefly catalogued as follows: Course 23, block 3, at the right a cutting 
from 0.04—0.10 m. deep; block 4, at the left a slight scar, at the right the whole height is cut away toa depth of 0.32 m.; 
this cutting is continued into the southwest corner of block 5, forming a hole from 0.26—-0.31 m. wide (Fig. 93) which 
extends for 0.05 m. under the north wall itself; block 6, small scar; block 7, in right upper edge a cutting from 0.03- 
0.055 m. deep. Course 22, block 3, upper left, a scar about 0.03 m. deep, partly hidden by the late pier; block 4, lower 
right corner, a hole 0.08—0.11 m. deep, showing marks of tools; block 5, lower edge broken away, probably before the 
stone was laid as no marks extend into the course below; block 7, small hole near centre (Fig. 93); block 8, at the 
top a rough cutting, at the upper right corner and along the right side a hole about 0.10 m. deep; block 9, nearly half 
the surface cut back roughly for 0.05-0.06 m. (Fig. 93); block 10, more than half the surface cut back from 0.03- 
0.055 m. Course 21, the inserted poros block e, a cutting about 0.035 m. deep (Fig. 93). 


DESCRIPTION 141 


blocks of Acropolis limestone unmixed with marble or mortar, and the earth filling between 
the stones of this stratum has yielded no pottery later than Late Helladic III. Just east of 
the remnant of the pavement in the Prothesis the Acropolis limestone rises higher and is 
found in contact with the poros blocks resting on course 22. The uppermost limestone is 
a small loose piece (Fig. 90) which may have been broken away on the north side when 


Figure 89. NORTH WALL: PREHISTORIC REMAINS WEST 
OF PROTHESIS OF CHURCH (SEPTEMBER 2, 1922) 


the poros was laid, but may also owe its present position to the building of the pier. Below 
on the east is a larger stone (Figs. 88, 90), in the top of which a shallow rabbet has been 
cut to receive the lower south edge of two poros blocks (Fig. 88, 7, ). The stone extends 
very slightly beneath the poros, although in its present position it is impossible to determine 
whether its north face has been cut back below the rabbet. To the southeast of this stone 
and lower down, another large piece of Acropolis limestone extends about 1.50 m. into the 
Erechtheum. 

The evidence thus far collected proves the presence of a prehistoric wall, about 1.25-— 
1.50 m. thick, in close contact with the foundations of the north wall and extending from 


INSERTED 
POROS 
BLOCKS 


142 THE ERECHTHEUM 


about a metre east of the doorway of the crypt almost or quite to the foundation of the east 
wall. No traces of its continuation outside of the Erechtheum on the east were brought to 
light by the excavations of 1887.1 The construction of the doorway into the crypt and the 
excavation of the mediaeval cistern have destroyed all traces of its extension toward the west, 
but it may be noted that the foundation below the North Door is free from any cuttings or 
holes resembling those which are visible farther east. It is possible that, when the Erech- 
theum was built, only the lower courses of this wall were preserved west of the east cross-wall; 


Figure 90. NORTH WALL: PREHISTORIC REMAINS EAST OF THRESHOLD OF PROTHESIS (1926) 


at least the marks of its presence in this section appear to be confined to course 23 and the 
lower part of course’22. East of the cross-wall the traces are generally somewhat higher and 
are found even on the inserted poros blocks (Fig. 88 e, 7, k) which rest on course 22. 

It remains to consider the probable function of these inserted poros blocks (Figs. 1, 2, 
88). As has been said (p. 6) they vary somewhat in length, height, and thickness. The top of 
the course shows in elevation a series of irregular, long, shallow (0.02—0.05 m. in depth), 
concave curves, with the high points roughly in the middle of each block. In section, the 
top is dressed to slope downward from north to south. It will be remembered that in the 
northeast corner of the Pandroseum a poros block, resting upon a projecting course of the 
foundation, was inserted to sustain older blocks which would otherwise have lacked ade- 
quate support (Figs. 71, 72). The similarity between the conditions there and those along 

1 Cf. Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl. [’; Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pl. VII. There are remains of two pre- 


historic walls running east from the Erechtheum; one is about in line with the second column from the north of the 
East Portico, the other with the second column from the south. 


DESCRIPTION 143 


the north wall is so close as to leave no doubt that the explanation is the same. Clearly these 
inserted poros blocks were pushed in like wedges (hence the oblique cutting of their tops) 
between course 22 and older stones left undisturbed above. The lead, which was run in be- 
low and above, removed all danger of displacement.! Only two small fragments of the older 
stones have survived. One is below the west edge of the sill of the Prothesis (Fig. 88, above 
h), the other a little east of it (Figs. 88, above 7, 7, 90); both fragments are of poros bedded 
in lead. Some additional information may be gathered from an examination of the top of 
the inserted blocks. The long shallow curves must have been cut to fit the bottoms of the 
stones above, and the high points, therefore, should mark the joints in that course. The 
length of the stones, as thus ascertained, varies between 0.82 m. and 1.15 m. with an average 
of about 0.95 m.’ The fact that their bottoms were slightly convex would at first sight sug- 
gest that they were neither wholly rough nor yet carefully smoothed, but rather stones 
which broke naturally to a fairly flat surface. Such a fracture, however, is not characteristic 
of poros, and if the course was wholly composed of that material, its blocks must have been 
especially dressed to this irregular line.* This dressing would be intelligible, if they had been 
fitted to the uneven top of an earlier polygonal wall. It is, of course, clear that when the 
foundations of the Erechtheum were laid, these blocks projected on the north beyond the 
primitive wall below; otherwise it would have been neither necessary, nor indeed possible, 
to have inserted the poros wedges to sustain them. It is, however, unlikely that originally 
they had any such projection, since foundations are usually broader than the wall above. 
It would seem, then, that in building the Erechtheum a part of the primitive wall, which 
was below these blocks, was removed and its place taken by the inserted poros wedges and 
the courses beneath them. 

Any further reconstruction of pre-Erechtheum conditions must be tentative and largely 
hypothetical.‘ If, as seems highly probable, the site of the East Cella was even then a raised 
terrace with a retaining wall approximately on the line of the later east cross-wall (pp. 426f.), 
it is quite possible that on its north side was either another retaining wall, if the ground 
farther north had about the same level as in later times, or the poros foundation of a build- 
ing, if the terrace extended to the wall of the Acropolis.’ West of this terrace there seems 

1 Lead is still in place below the poros blocks, between their joints, and also between the tops of these blocks and 
the two small fragments of the course which they supported. 

2 The first poros block on the west (Fig. 88, a)is too broken to yield any points of measurement. From the joint 
on 6 to the joint on e (the block c is missing and there is no joint on d) is 2.71 m., which we may suppose was covered 
by three stones averaging 0.903 m. in length, unless the order was broken by the east cross-wall or its predecessor. 
From e eastward the lengths of the missing blocks are 0.82 m., 1.00 m., 0.93 m., 1.15 m. (the surviving fragments 
belonged to this block), 1.02 m., 0.59 m., 0.81m. The two easternmost blocks rested on J, which is distinctly higher 
than the other inserted poros blocks (0.64 m. against a maximum of 0.45 m. farther west). The top of its west end has 
disappeared, but the line of the joint is preserved. From the bed cut on its eastern top it would seem that the block 
it supported only extended to about 0.30 m. from the north wall. 

3 The use of poros suggests that this course is not part of the early Helladic work. Indeed it seems quite possible 
that here, as in the Pandroseum, there are remains of a restoration after the Persian invasion. 


4 These conditions have been examined and a reconstruction attempted by L. B. Holland, ‘Erechtheum Papers, 
II, Il,’ A. J. A. XXVIII, 1924, pp. 142-169, 402-425. 5 On the site of the Erechtheum, see Ch. V, pp. 424 ff. 


AT THE 
EAST END 


144 THE ERECHTHEUM 


to have been no building corresponding to the central rooms of the Erechtheum. It will be 
remembered that the foundation of the Old Temple east of the south door of the Erech- 
theum was given the dressing of a visible surface (p. 136), and thus apparently formed the 
southern boundary of an open court. The northern boundary may well have been marked 
by a primitive wall with a poros superstructure, but the possibility must also be admitted 
that here the inserted wedges did not support a poros wall but a step or pavement of un- 
known material.! 

The foundations of the east wall (PLATE IX) and of the southeast corner (Figs. 4, 5, 92) 
also show irregularities which can only be due to the presence of earlier structures. In the 
lower courses of the east wall marks of possible contact with an early wall are very few. 
The block at the south end of course 21 has been roughly and irregularly hollowed out,” and 
both this block and the one adjacent on the north have been set a little (ca. 0.08 m.) east 
of the rest of the course. Just north of the south aisle wall of the church in this same course 
is a cutting about 0.33 m. wide, 0.14 m. high, and 0.06 m. deep,’ and in the seventh block from 
the north in the course above (20) a strip about 0.40 m. wide on the north side of its west 
face has been cut back for about 0.10 m. In courses 20, 21, and 22, the west face of each course 
is in line with that below or slightly east of it. Course 19, however, is set back 0.15 m. to 
0.24 m. from the west edge of the course below (p. 9),4 thus leaving on the top of course 20 a 
slightly raised shelf or ledge. Course 18 again projects westward about 0.30 m. beyond the 
course below (PLatrEs XI, XII). The block south of the gap made by the apse of the church 
(Fig. 4) has a rabbet in the lower western edge, 0.30 m. deep and 0.11 m. high, the back of 
which aligns with the western edge of the course below, and has been given an anathy- 
rosis at its south end. The remaining block on the south and those north of the gap have 
no rabbet. Eight blocks of this course were removed to make room for the apse, and six of 
these have been identified, five in the north and one in the south aisle wall of the church.*® 
Three of these blocks, like the northern blocks in situ, have no rabbet; two others have a 
rabbet, like that in the block south of the apse, but with slightly different height and depth.*® 
The sixth block (Fig. 91) has a rabbet 0.30 m. deep and 0.125 m. high, but the cutting is 


1 How far the earlier walls were retained beneath the floor of the East Cella is unknown. There was no need of 
removing anything below course 14 of the north wall. In the north central room, however, the floor was certainly no 
higher than the bottom of the orthostates, and may very well have been a course lower (p. 159), but this does not 
suffice to prove that the course which rested on the inserted poros blocks was surely a pavement. The north wall of 
the sacred precinct might well have been carefully retained until the new structure was sufficiently complete to protect 
this area from intrusion. 

2 The longer diameter of this cutting is ca. 0.40 m., the shorter ca. 0.27 m.; its depth ca. 0.12 m. The lower part 
of the cutting fits against the native rock. The upper part is above the rock, and may well have been made to avoid 
a primitive wall, but it may be merely a continuation of the lower. 

3 The upper left hand corner of this block has been cut away, forming a concave channel running back 0.44 m. 
from the face of the block. Its purpose is unknown, but it is certainly not due to contact with a wall at this point. 
Cf. Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 17. 

4 The variation is due to the irregular projection of the west face of course 20. 

5 These blocks were identified in 1923 by G. W. Elderkin by means of their peculiar height, since this course is 
from 0.02 to 0.03 m. lower than the other courses; see Holland, l. c., p. 2, note; p. 19, note 1. 

6 One rabbet is 0.295 m. deep, and 0.122 m. high; the other 0.315 m. and 0.12 m. 


DESCRIPTION 145 


only 0.435 m. long and stops 0.225 m. from the north edge of the block, thus plainly mark- 
ing the limit of the rabbet in this direction. As two blocks of the course are still missing, 
the exact position of this block cannot be determined,’ but since there were at least six 
blocks and perhaps eight (if the two missing blocks had no rabbet) to the north of it, it 
must have stood above either the sixth, seventh, or eighth header from the north in course 20 
(PLATE IX), and according to the place assigned to it, the 
total length of the rabbet must have been about 3.70 m., 
3.05 m., or 2.40 m., — that is, five, four, or three blocks of 
about 0.65 m. each, plus 0.435 m. on the northern block. 
The peculiar recession of course 19 and the rabbet in 
part of course 18 point to the presence of some obstacle 
which prevented normal construction, and the even align- 


Figure 91. EAST WALL: BLOCK FROM ie 
FOUNDATIONS, RABBETED AT soutH Ment as well as the anathyrosis in the rabbet? may perhaps 


ee THC indicate that the latter course was fitted against regular 


coursed masonry rather than against an irregular wall. In view of the methods followed 
by the builders of the Erechtheum in the Pandroseum and at the base of the north wall, 
it is natural to believe that here too there was a course of poros wedges on the projecting 
edge of course 20, propping up older blocks which had been undermined or otherwise 
weakened by the new foundations; and it is also possible that the rabbet in course 18 was 
fitted over so much of the pre-Erechtheum projecting course as rose a little above the 
blocks on the north and south of the rabbet. Whether these old blocks formed part of a 
wall, a pavement, or a step cannot be determined with certainty from the existing evidence, 
but that they supported something seems clear from the construction of the foundations at 
the east end of the south wall (Figs. 5, 92). Here the only trace of a primitive wall is a 
rough cutting, about 0.35 m. wide and 0.07 m. deep, in the face of the east block of course 20. 
In course 19 the east block rose originally above the adjoining blocks and ranged with the 
top of the rabbet in the east wall. It was, however, dressed down to the height of its neigh- 
bors over most of its surface, but the original height was left for a short distance at its 
northwest corner, while the block above in course 18 of the south wall was somewhat irregu- 
larly cut back through its entire height around this projection. This recess is continued up- 
ward through course 17, but here the sides are cut evenly to a width of 0.323 m. In course 
16 the east block is set back and projects only 0.05 m. beyond the rear line of the cutting in 
course 17; the next block on the west, however, projects northward practically as far as 


1 On the possible positions of this block, see Holland, J. c., pp. 19 f., pl. I, ¢. 

2 It does not seem safe to draw any conclusion from the presence of anathyrosis on the west face of blocks in 
courses 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the east foundation. These courses are composed of standard poros blocks which were 
doubtless dressed with anathyrosis on both sides and ends, in order that they might be used as either headers or 
stretchers according to the convenience of the builders. In courses 20 and 21 of the north wall, for example, the 
blocks have beev given an anathyrosis although they are not fitted closely against the inserted poros blocks, and in the 
south wall some of the poros stretchers have been given the anathyrosis suitable for contact with two headers (PLATE 
XII; Fig. 5), although it is practically certain no such blocks were ever laid against them. 


146 THE ERECHTHEUM 


course 17, and its east corner has been broken away about to the line of the cutting below, 
but the appearance of the surface in the break indicates that this is due to a search for metal 
in the joints of the course rather than to an original cutting. A natural explanation of this 
recess is that it was made to accommodate a thin stone, or stones, resting on the high part of 
the block in course 19 of the south wall and on the early course 
farther north. The presence of such a vertical wall may also 
account for the fact that the west faces of courses 16, 17, 
and 18 of the east foundations are in the same plane — a 
regularity which is unique in the coursing of the foundations 
of the Erechtheum. The nature of this earlier structure is 
unknown. It may have formed part of the enclosing wall of 


a sacred precinct, or the front of an ancient temple. 


tear ig U7 — One more bit of early construction may have survived in 
Pose chor situ. At the southwest corner of the nave of the church there 
oo projects to the north for about 0.60 m. from under the aisle 


wall a slab of coarse grayish marble, 0.45 m. wide and 0.09 m. 
thick, resting on earth which is free from chips and mortar 
(PLATE II). This material is found in Helladic walls on the 
16. Acropolis and the stone may perhaps be the only remnant 
of a wall running through this point.? 

It seems needless to attribute the preservation of these 
remains of earlier walls within the Erechtheum to any other 
aes 19, motive than that of convenience. Whatever their original 

eae ee height there is no evidence for the survival of any of these 

' Figure 92. PLANS OF COURSES walls above the floors of the completed building, although 

16-18 AT JUNCTION OF EAST it is quite possible that some were allowed to stand until the 

AND SOUTH FOUNDATIONS 

new structure was sufficiently advanced to take over their 

functions. Below the floors it doubtless appeared easier to adapt the new foundations to 

the irregularities than to remove the prehistoric blocks altogether, especially as this latter 
operation would have called for a new filling and grading of the area. 


cLine of 24 7 
course 4 AW 
above 


i 
! 
! 
' 
t 
1 
i 
1 
1 


z Z 


2. THE EAST CELLA 


(A) The East Cross-wall. The higher eastern half of the temple was separated from the 
lower western half by a cross-wall, the position of which is certain, although in constructing 
the church it was entirely removed. The lower part of both the north and south walls is 
still an setu. Here on the interior face, at points opposite each other, are stones which, though 


1 See Ch. V, pp. 442-445, 447. L. B. Holland, l.c., pp. 20-23, 408-414, has suggested that this earlier structure 
was a sill or threshold for an entrance flanked by a parapet of orthostates enclosing a sacred precinct, and erected 
after the Persian invasion. 

2 The suggestion that this block is the survivor of an Helladic wall is due to L. B. Holland, l. c., pp. 16, 425. 


DESCRIPTION 147 


now broken off (Figs. 100, 101), evidently once projected as elbows, and thus determine the 
starting points of the cross-wall, as well as its thickness, which can be fixed at 0.65 m. or 
two Attic feet.1. Along the course of this wall the rock shows no signs of regular dressing 
(Fig. 93), though here and there points of rock seem to have been hammered away. The 
absence of a prepared bed, such as was cut for the other walls in the Erechtheum in: 5); 


Figure 93. ROCK ON LINE OF EAST CROSS-WALL, LOOKING NORTH (FEBRUARY 10, 1914) 


and such as is, in fact, usual in Greek buildings of the fifth century and later, is hard to 
explain, if the foundation here was of regular ashlar masonry. Its absence is, however, per- 
fectly natural, if the builders of the Erechtheum took advantage of an existing primitive 
wall, such as has already been traced beneath the south door and inside the base of the north 
wall, for, as has been said (p. 14), these early walls being laid on the natural rock leave no 


1 In the drawing by Pars in the British Museum (Puate LI, 2) the traces of this wall on the upper part of the in- 
ner face of the south wall are very clearly shown. 


148 THE ERECHTHEUM 


trace when they are demolished. If, as seems likely on other grounds, an elevated ter- 
race existed from very early times on the site of the East Cella of the Erechtheum, the 
later east cross-wall may well have rested on the lower courses of the western retaining 
wall of this terrace.! | 

The orthostates were not bonded into the side walls, and at the north end of the cross- 
wall there must always have been an irregular joint, as the orthostate of the side wall has 
not received its final dressing, and consequently has a drafted edge below.” Above the 
orthostates the wall, except at each end, was composed, presumably, of blocks of the usual 
length, four Attic feet. At the ends, as the total width of the temple inside was thirty 
Attic feet, the projection of the blocks from the inner face of the side walls was in alternate 
courses respectively one foot and three feet, as in the wall at the east front (PLats XVII). 
It is certain that the projection of one foot was always cut as an elbow, and that in the 
lower part of both north and south walls the projection of three feet was also formed in 
the same manner. In the upper courses most of the blocks are lost, but a few remain (Figs. 
94, 95), which indicate that here the cross-wall was bonded into the side walls. These 
blocks have now been replaced, but not in their original positions. 

This wall was evidently repaired in Roman times, for there are sundry blocks which 
seem to be connected with it, all of which show p= clamps. To this date may also belong 
some of the cuttings, about one-half the thickness of the wall, in blocks now replaced in the 
south wall,® for the reception of the cross-wall. This cross-wall, like the walls of pronaos and 
opisthodomos in temples in antis, probably extended above the ceiling, in order to afford a 
support for the beams of the roof. 

In the interior of the East Cella, except on the east side, there seem to have been no 
orthostates as a dado for the walls. The construction at the east end of the north wall 
(Fig. 17) proves that the orthostates of the east front were not continued on the north, while 
the evidence is conclusive (p. 48) that the external orthostates of the south wall were backed 


1 See Ch. V, pp. 426 ff., and Holland, A. J. A. XXVIII, 1924, pp. 16, 151, 409 ff., 482 f. 

2 Compare the contact of the epistyle of the North Portico with the north wall, p. 86 and Fig. 54. 

3 Since the corresponding courses in the north and south walls are not always of exactly the same height (pp. 44, 
156; Fig. 19), it is probable that the bed of each course was slightly inclined, as in other cases. 

4 Fig. 94. A block 0.312 m. wide, or about one-half the thickness of the side walls. The face shows no trace of 
fire, so that it is not from the interior backing of the south orthostates, but belongs to the outside of the wall. One 
end of a block was clamped to it, 0.335 m. from the west end, and the remaining space was filled by another block 
which was clamped to the stones on its east and west. One of these blocks, probably the former, belonged to the cross- 
wall; the other was merely backing. The back has anathyrosis. It is now the third block west of the cross-wall in 
course 2 of the south wall (Phare XII). Another similar block has been found, 1.30 m. long, 0.386 m. wide, and 0.49 m. 
high; it also has anathyrosis at the back. The face of both blocks has a batter. Both are shown to be Greek by the 
presence of k= clamps. 

Fig. 95. A block which was originally the full thickness of the wall, but bearing on top traces of the presence of 
a block only one-half the usual thickness, like that shown in Figure 94. It has only Greek clamps. 

5 Fig. 96. Two blocks re-used in Roman times. The upper is cut away for about one-half its thickness to receive 
the cross-wall. It has been replaced in course 2 of the south wall on the line of the cross-wall. The lower shows where 
the cross-wall abutted on the surface and was secured by = clamps. It is now in course 3 of the north wall next to 
the east anta, where it certainly does not belong. 


N “_ 


Sk | BACK 


pot tcc ccc ccc 


k— Z3/ — —— I,30/ as 
FicureE 94. BLOCK, ONE-HALF USUAL THICKNESS, Figure 95. BLOCK, FROM EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH 
FROM EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH WALL AT JUNC- WALL, ON WHICH RESTED A BLOCK ONLY ONE-HALF 

TION OF EAST CROSS-WALL: ISOMETRIC THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL: ISOMETRIC 


FiaurE 96. TWO BLOCKS FROM EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH WALL AT 
JUNCTION OF EAST CROSS-WALL, SHOWING ROMAN METHOD 
OF BONDING: ISOMETRIC 


[ 149 ] 


150 THE ERECHTHEUM 


on the inside by two courses of ordinary height. The west wall of the cella would natur- 
ally resemble the north and south walls in this respect. 

(B) The Level of the Floor in the East Cella. —'The inner face of the orthostate at the 
southeast corner of the East Cella never received its final dressing, and in the corner was 
not even cut to a right angle but was left slightly rounded. At the bottom is a smooth 
drafted surface, 0.055 m. high, and above this a second drafted surface, about 0.065 m. high, 
projecting a little from the plane of the first (PLATE XVI). These conditions are quite in- 
consistent with the presence of a floor above the bottom of the orthostate, although they 
may suggest that this corner was concealed by a bench or some other object placed in front 
of it. That the floor, on the other hand, was no lower than the bottom of the orthostate 
seems indicated by the projection of the block beneath the orthostate into the interior of 
the temple (PLatTes XII, XVI; Fig. 30). We may fairly assume, therefore, that its level is 
given by the top of this block.! The height of the sill of the east door has been so restored 
(PLatEs XV, XVII) that it aligns with the top of the upper torus of the base moulding, 
which is carved on the orthostate, in order that this moulding may finish against the sill. 
The result is that this sill has approximately the same height as that of the North Door ? 
and that it is also a little above (ca. 0.087 m.) the floor within the cella, thus permitting 
the free movement of the valves of the door, customary in Greek temples. The tops of the 
sills of both doors thus align with the tops of the upper tori in the bases of the east and 
north walls (PLates VII, XVII). 

There is no evidence in the building itself for any door in the eastern cross-wall, nor for 
any stairway between the higher and lower levels of the temple. The only places where 
any remains of such a stairway could possibly be sought are on the side walls, and here the 
evidence is clear that the cross-wall, in its lower part at least, abutted on the side walls, 
so that the arrangement of marble in relation to poros on the interior of the south wall 
(PLate XII; Fig. 100), which misled many observers,’? cannot have anything to do with a 
flight of steps. It may be noted also that an interior stairway would have seriously dimin- 
ished an already scanty space, —a consideration too frequently neglected in the early 
attempts at reconstruction. Furthermore, there seems no good reason why there should 
have been direct communication between the two cellas, which were separate in cultus. 
The only passage in literature which can seem to imply a stairway, is the quotation from 
Philochorus,’ and this is couched in too general terms to be in any way conclusive. 

1 It is, of course, possible, as has been suggested by Holland (A. J. A. XXVIII, 1924, pp. 413 f.), that this block 
formed part of a step or low platform along the foot of the south wall, but there appears to be no positive evidence 
for this hypothesis. The blocks in the northeast corner are too much damaged to furnish any information on this point. 

> The height of the east sill, as restored, is 0.331 m.; that of the north sill is 0.322 m. The height of the upper 
torus, as may be seen in PLaTE X XIX, 2, is 0.087 m. 

3 See, for example, Rangabé, Ant. hellén, I, p. 70; Tétaz, R. Arch. VIII, 1, 1851, p. 9; H. Hettner, Griechische 


Reiseskizzen, p. 130; Beulé, II, p. 227; Julius, Hrechtheion, p. 21. 
4 Frg. 146, ap. Dionys. Hal., de Din. 13. See Ch. V, pp. 474 f. 


DESCRIPTION 151 


3. THE WESTERN PART OF THE TEMPLE 


(A) The West Cross-wall. — Early 
publications of the Erechtheum fail to 
distinguish between the traces left by 


aC 


WA isiine 


thus appears that the foundations of the 
Greek wall are preserved only in the two 
lower courses at the north (Fig. 97).° 
The two upper courses of poros, and the 


iS 


Y, 


= 


AeA 


s\\ee 


Zz 


“ll sa 


Zz 
~ 
> 
A 
g 
the original Greek western cross-wall : We : 
and by a later wall, constructed at the % Bs ~ 5 
time of the Roman restoration. The a * Gi : 
marks of the earlier wall were first noted } = z 
by Borrmann, but the credit for their Z S 
correct interpretation is due to Dérpfeld, A ae 2 
and the position of the wall was first in- IW x = 
* . — Dy) i 
dicated in the plan of the Erechtheum x a 
a 
which accompanied his discussion of the = g 
Old Temple of Athena.! ee lias 
ke bs a) 
For the foundations of the Greek wall DW BS 
; “AS EE 
the rock was generally dressed to a series |\S 3 2 
of horizontal beds, but at three points ove é z 
(Fig. 97, A, B, D) small gaps or pockets a 4 & 
were left, which were spanned by blocks = ¢ yes = : 
of the wall. In two of these pockets (A, = Ei 2p if 
D) the filling was marble chips and clean == X 
earth, while at B were found Roman == ; i F 
: =: Voom, 
potsherds and impure earth.? The block == ‘IG Bs 
es = ¢ < 
at C has on its bottom an anathyrosis Z = fe 
Be ete Z = 
which indicates that it is an old stone not % = é 
Mics. nee ve poe ZS S) 
in its original position and inverted. It Z Q 
= 
BH 
5 
nN 
5 
= 
5 
o 
ca 


1 Borrmann, Ath. Mitt., VI, 1881, pp. 388, 389, 
fig.; Doérpfeld, Ant. Denk., I, 1; cf. Michaelis, Jb. 
Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 17. See also Penrose, Ath. 
Arch., p. 91; Middleton, Athenian Buildings, p. 13, 
pl. XIV; J.-M., Atlas, pls. XXV, XXVII. Penrose 
and Middleton believed that the earlier partition was narrow and of wood. The latter also suggested that the plan 
was altered and a stone wall substituted during the construction of the building. 

2 It is certain that neither the Greek nor the Roman foundations were watertight, and that, therefore, this wall 
could never have formed part of the boundary of the ancient ‘‘sea”’ (p. 169). 

3’ L. B. Holland (A. J. A. XXVIII, 1924, pp. 423 ff.) argues that these two courses were probably laid before the 


Erechtheum was built. 


THE GREEK 
WALL 


152 THE ERECHTHEUM 


marble sill are later. These poros courses align on the east, but not on the west, with the 
Greek foundations. The marble threshold is set about 0.30 m. behind the east face of the 
wall below, but in line with the west face of its upper course (PLatTEs XI, XII). 

The original wall, set close to the east edge of the foundation of poros, was in line with 
the east side of the Porch of the Maidens (PLatss I, II). The later wall was set 0.325 m. to 
the west of the earlier wall, the lines of the two overlapping for about half their thickness. 
The traces of the contact of the original cross-wall with the side walls are few but perfectly 
conclusive. On the north wall the blocks in courses 13 and 15 still show clear evidence that 
a projection has been cut away, although some of the surface has been dressed with consid- 
erable care (PLATE XI; Fig. 98). Moreover, to the east of the half of each block which has 
been thus treated, is a slightly depressed and carefully finished band, 0.092 m. wide, running 
from the top to the bottom of the stone (PLaTr XI), while farther east the surface of the 
wall is left, as is usual in the interior of the temple, without this finish. This band alone 
would imply that there was an angle here, that is, that the block had an elbow. Just such 
finished surfaces in the angles are frequent in the Propylaea. 

On the south wall (Puatr XII; Fig. 99), in course 16, there is a Greek anathyrosis on that 
half of the block which is in line with the projecting blocks of the north wall, showing that 
at this point a block of the cross-wall was in contact with the side wall.!_ Between courses 
14 and 15 the T-dowel, which secured the long block east of the door into the Porch of the 
Maidens and is now visible from the inside, was certainly concealed by the Greek cross- 
wall. In courses 9 and 10 of the same wall are remains of bosses, which, had the cross-wall 
continued to this point, would have been intersected respectively by the east and west edges 
of that wall. The cross-wall, therefore, did not reach higher than the bottom of the tenth 
course. 

This height will appear reasonable enough, if we bear in mind that the only light avail- 
able for the central part of the building was that which was admitted through the gratings 
in the western intercolumniations. In view of the available evidence, the most satisfactory 
reconstruction seems to be to assign to this western cross-wall, or rather screen wall, the 
same height as that of the western wall below the columns, and to finish it at the top, in the 
lower half of the twelfth course, with a coping, aligning with and similar to the one on the 
west wall.” 

The thickness of the screen wall may be measured on the side walls as 0.65 m. Init also, 
oddly enough, there was a careless joint between its orthostates and those of the side walls, 
which were not dressed down to a final surface at the plane of contact. 

The same evidence which proves that the wall did not extend above the bottom of 
course 10, is also conclusive against the presence of antae in contact with the side walls and 


1 'The smooth band across the top indicates the contact of a block rather than of a flat pilaster, which would have 
called for a smooth band only on the two sides of the block in the south wall. 
2 On the probable position of this screen wall in the original plan of the Erechtheum, see p. 168. 


Figure 98. NORTH WALL: WEST END, INSIDE, FROM SOUTH DOORWAY (MARCH 28, 1909) 


THE 
TRANS- 
VERSE 
BEAM 


154 THE ERECHTHEUM 


consequently of columns on the cross-wall. At the same time the great span of the western 
division of the temple — 10.753 m. from east to west and 9.837 m. from north to south — 
renders it unlikely that the beams of the roof and ceiling were without an intermediate 
support. As this support was not furnished by the western cross-wall, and as the space be- 
tween ceiling and roof was too low to permit the insertion of a structurally effective truss 
to which the ceiling might be tied, it is necessary to inquire whether the side walls throw 
any light upon the solution actually adopted. 

In course 5 of the south wall, west of the Greek cross-wall but on the line of the later 
wall, the surface of the block is countersunk about 0.01 m. and also has a Greek dressing 
very like the depressed centre of an anathyrosis; its height is that of the course, but its 
breadth cannot be determined with certainty on account of the poor preservation of the 
stone (PLATE XII; Fig. 99). Below, in the top of course 6, are two cuttings, 0.33 m. apart, 
for =| clamps running north and south (PLatss XII, X XVII, 4), and beneath them traces 
of anathyrosis. It is clear that in Greek times a stone was here held against the face of the 
south wall by the clamps, and as it cannot have been connected with the cross-wall, since 
it is not on its axis, it is reasonable to suppose that it rested on a corbel which projected from 
the course, or courses, below.! Direct evidence for the presence of this corbel has been de- 
stroyed, since courses 7 and 8, immediately below, were cut away to permit the insertion of 
blocks of the later cross-wall. The surface of the corresponding block in course 6 of the 
north wall is too badly damaged to yield any clear evidence of an abutting block, but in 
course 5 there are traces of a Greek anathyrosis corresponding to that in the countersinking 
on the south wall, in course 7 the cutting into which the block of the later cross-wall is in- 
serted (the end of the stone is still in place) may itself be Greek, and there are faint traces 
of anathyrosis in course 8. Nothing, therefore, remains that is inconsistent with the hy- 
pothesis that a similar block and supporting corbel once existed on this side of the temple. 
Such a construction finds its natural explanation in the presence above this point of a heavy 
transverse beam, about two Attic feet wide, supported by struts resting on the stones over 
the corbels which, being firmly inserted in the walls, would be well able to bear the down- 
ward thrust (Fig. 111 8). The bottom of the struts would be received in the countersinking 
in course 5 of the south wall, and against the anathyrosis on the corresponding course of 
the north wall.? It has already been noted (p. 76; Fig. 49) that the presence of such a truss 
helps to explain the peculiar position of the purlins in the roof at this end of the temple. 

The number and character of the openings in the Greek wall, by which communication 
was maintained between the divisions of the lower western half of the building, will be 
considered in connection with the probable arrangement of the rooms in this part of the 
temple (p. 158). 


1 In Figures 49 and 111 8, a corbel one course high is indicated by solid lines, one two courses high by dots. The 
latter restoration, first suggested by L. B. Holland, is not inconsistent with the traces on the side walls, and seems 
more effective architecturally. On the possible presence of pilasters above the corbels, see Additional Note I, p. 646. 

? See, also, on this construction B. H. Hill, ‘Structural Notes on the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., XIV, 1910, p. 296. 


Ficurr 99. SOUTH WALL: WEST END, INSIDE, FROM NORTH DOOR (MARCH 26, 1909) 


[ 155 ] 


THE ROMAN 
WALL 


LONGITU- 
DINAL 
WALL 


156 THE ERECHTHEUM 


On the north wall, in the fourth and seventh courses, butts! of stones belonging to the 
later cross-wall are still in place (PLaTe) XI; Fig. 98). In the fifteenth and seventeenth 
courses are holes cut for the reception of similar stones, by which the cross-wall was secured. 
Both of these holes expose Greek dowels in the side walls and are relatively rough. In the 
fifth, eighth, ninth, and thirteenth courses there are clear traces of the contact of the cross- 
wall with the north wall. On the south wall (PLaTr XII; Fig. 99) there are similar cuttings 
in the seventh, eighth, and seventeenth courses, while the fifth, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth 
show traces of the contact of the later wall. This evidence on the side walls indicates that 
the later wall extended nearly or quite to the ceiling. Probably it was a screen wall with 
columns and antae, which, in the absence of the great transverse beam, was needed to sup- 
port the timbers of the roof and ceiling. 

That this later wall forms part of the Roman repairs and is not due to the transforma- 
tion into a church is shown not only by the general construction, which is much more care- 
ful than in the clearly Christian work, but also by numerous details. Thus the blocks in 
the marble sill are held together by clamps in the usual Roman way, and the dowel cuttings 
of the normal Roman type, while consistent with a marble wall above, bear no relation to 
the poros used in the Christian wall; in the side walls the blocks were secured by r= clamps, 
which appear in all Roman repairs; and finally the longitudinal walls, which separated the 
aisles and nave of the church, show at their contact with the cross-wall that they are of later 
construction.” 

(Bs) The Central Part of the Building. — The following considerations furnish strong 
reasons for believing that the western cross-wall was not the only line of division in this 
part of the building. 

The orthostates of the north wall are 0.976 m. high, while those of the south are only 
0.897 m., being 0.059 m. higher at the bottom and 0.02 m. lower at the top* than those in 
the opposite wall. It is obvious, therefore, that if the central portion of the temple formed a 
single room with the floor at the same level throughout, this floor must have stood in very 
different relations to the orthostates in these two walls, — an unusual irregularity in a 
Greek building. If, however, there existed a wall running east and west, forming two cham- 
bers (PLATE I), these difficulties would be much lessened. Such a wall would make it pos- 
sible to bring the tops and bottoms of the orthostates on all four sides of each room into 
line. Differences in height in the orthostates of the east wall would be concealed by the 
dividing wall, and since in the Erechtheum the orthostates were regularly only one-half 
the thickness of the wall, in this dividing wall they could be given different heights on oppo- 
site faces, while the two openings in the west wall, described below, would make it easy to 
bring the orthostates at the ends into accord with the side walls, as their height could be 


1 The one in course 7 shows a two-sided, or Roman, lewis. 

2 See Ch. V, p. 496. 

* The resulting difference in level between the two walls is removed by slight increases in the height of the courses 
of the south wall, and a true level attained two courses higher at the base of the crepis on the east and south. 


Figure 100. SOUTH WALL, INSIDE, FROM WEST (1922) 


[ 157 ] 


STONE 
DOORS 


LEVEL OF 
FLOORS 


158 THE ERECHTHEUM 


slightly varied on either side of an opening, as is done, for example, on either side of the 
door into the Pandroseum from the North Portico (Parr VII). 

The hypothesis of such a dividing wall, which in default of definite evidence may be 
conjecturally placed on the axis of the temple, appears to be supported by certain phrases 
in the report of the commissioners of 409 B.c. (Inscription II). In col. 1, ll. 69-76 the record 
of unfinished carving in the interior of the temple is most easily understood, if the walls 
there listed include two screen walls in the western part.! Later in the same report we hear 
(col. 11, Il. 87-92) of four stone doors, or rather of four valves for two doors, which are not 
adapted to any of the exterior openings, but, as will be seen later, are well suited to the 
west cross-wall. Two doors again naturally suggest two rooms with a dividing wall.’ 

According to the inscription each of these valves measured eight and one-quarter by 
two and one-half Attic feet, or 2.706 m. by 0.82 m. Judging from the stone doors discovered 
in Macedonia and Lydia* they were probably about 0.15 m. thick, and larger than the 
openings by about 0.03 m. at the sill, at least 0.05 m. at the lintel, and about 0.15 m. at 
the jambs. Thus the openings would be about 2.626 m. by 1.34 m., which is very close to 
the double square to which other openings in the Erechtheum approximate, and nearly the 
same size as the door into the Porch of the Maidens (2.70 m. by 1.31 m.). The screen wall, 
as has been said, was probably of the same height as the lower west wall, and its coping 
would naturally correspond with the moulded course below the columns on that wall. If 
the lintels above the doors were two courses high, as is the case elsewhere in the building, 
their bottoms would align with the joint between courses 14 and 15, and also with the 
bottom of the lintel of the west door into the Pandroseum. If the sills were raised 0.04 m. 
above the pavement of the west room (PLATE I, C), the height of the openings would be 
2.623 m., or within three millimetres of the height estimated from the inscription. As the 
dimensions given in the inscriptions are not minutely accurate, it has been assumed in the 
reconstruction (PLATE I) that the width was 1.31 m., or the same as that of the doorway 
into the Porch of the Maidens. Such elaborate stone doors call for architectural treatment 
of the sides of the openings, and their jambs have therefore been restored to resemble the 
jambs of the same doorway. 

Assuming, then, the existence of two chambers in the centre of the temple, we may now 
consider what evidence remains as to the level of the floor in each. In the south chamber 
(Puate I, B) the course below the orthostates (PLATE XII, course 19), although its face is 
very badly damaged, preserves, wherever it is unmutilated, from top to bottom the careful 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, and Commentary, pp. 310 ff., 317. 
* An analogous construction is found in the central portion of the Old Temple which is divided into two chambers 
by a wall running from east to west (PLATE I). 

* Heuzey and Daumet, Mission en Macédoine, pp. 229 ff., pls. 15, 21 (Palatitza, now in the Louvre); pp. 246-248, 
pis. 17, 20 (Kourino, Pydna); d’Espouy, Fragm. arch. ant., II, pls. 22, 23; Macridy, Jb. Arch. I., XXVI, 1911, pp. 
193-215 (doors from Langaza in Macedonia and from Lydia, in the Museum at Constantinople). See also Mendel, 
Mus. imp. ott., Sculptures, I, p. 353; Altmann, Rémische Grabaltére, pp. 13 ff. All these doors are from tombs. Ail 
open inward. A fragment of a similar door was found at the Heraeum, The Argive H eraeum, I, p. 132. 


DESCRIPTION 159 


dressing regularly given to a visible surface (Fig. 100) while on its under side pressure 
is regularly relieved.' The next lower course (20), however, is finished with a broad ana- 
thyrosis on the inner (north) face, admirably adapted to receive a pavement flush with the 
joint between courses 19 and 20, and this position has been adopted for the floor in PLATE 
XV.’ Such a pavement is 0.053 m. below the level assigned to the sill of the doorway in the 
west cross-wall. 

In the north wall, course 19, below the orthostates, is finished in much the same way as 
course 20 in the south (Fig. 101), while the course below is not dressed as a surface of con- 
tact, and is, moreover, covered to a considerable height * by the row of poros blocks set on 
edge, which, as has been said, were inserted to support some earlier construction while the 
Erechtheum was being built. It is, however, by no means easy to place the pavement in 
the north room (Puate I, A) at the joint between the orthostates (course 18) and the course 
below, for in that case it would have been level with the sill of the great North Door, and 
higher than the pavement in the west room (PLATE XV) and the sills of the doors in the 
screen wall. It seems better, therefore, to restore the pavement in this room either at the 
same level as in the south room — the solution presented in PLatr XV (cf. Fig. 1), — or else 
slightly lower, at the hypothetical level of an old pavement, which may have been retained 
or replaced by new stones. The anathyrosis along the upper part of the face of course 19, 
however, indicates the presence of abutting blocks, which were probably slabs forming part 
of a step or bench, since in some places below the anathyrosis the roughly chiselled sur- 
face projects slightly, showing that no other stone was there in contact with it. Whether 
this step or bench was confined to the north side of the room or was continued on the other 
sides cannot be determined, nor is there any clue to its purpose.* In Puatss I and XV this 
bench has been restored on the north, east, and south sides of the room. It cannot have 
run along the west side, as its presence would have prevented the doors from swinging 
back against the wall.® 

It is probable that in the Roman reconstruction the longitudinal wall was not rebuilt. 
The top of the Roman marble sill on the west cross-wall aligns with the top of the bench in 
room A (PLATE XI) and also with a faint weather line, which can be traced on course 19 of 
the south wall about 0.10 m. below the upper joint. It would appear, therefore, that this 


1 For relief of pressure, see Ch. II, p. 185. 

2 Since course 19 projects a little (about 0.047 m.) beyond the face of the orthostates, a similar projection prob- 
ably appeared along the other sides of the room. Such a projection occurs, for example, in the east hall of the Propylaea. 

3 The highest of the poros blocks is only 0.08m. below the top of course 20; see Phare XI and Figure 88. 

4 It must be kept in mind that there may have been access from this room into the crypt beneath the North 
Portico. 

5 There is a somewhat similar condition in the hall of the Propylaea. The orthostates there have been given their 
final dressing, but the course below, which projects slightly beyond the face of the orthostates, has only the smooth 
band of an anathyrosis along the upper edge. In front of these two courses was set a bench of black Eleusinian lime- 
stone. These blocks were dowelled to the pavement, but were not fitted over the projection below the orthostates, so 
that a smali gap was left between the bench and the wall behind it. It is, of course, possible that a similar bench, in- 
stead of a step, may have been placed in the north room of the Erechtheum. 


ROMAN 
ALTER- 
ATIONS 


(6061 ‘86 HOUVN) LSVAHLOAOS WOUd “AGISNI “VIVAL HLNON 


LOL Hund] 


DESCRIPTION 161 


was the level of the later floor. There is now lying in the Erechtheum a Roman! orthostate 
(Fig. 102) only about 0.003 m. lower than those in the north wall, and of almost half the 
thickness of an ordinary wall block. It is certainly from an inner wall and is 0.63 m. wide 
at the bottom and 0.654 m. wide at the top. In the upper surface is a cutting for a dowel 
with a pour channel to the left face. This shows that the stone above did not overlap on 
this side and, consequently, that at this point there were two vertical joints one above the 
other, or, in other words, that the stone was probably from one side of an inclined opening. 
Anathyrosis on this same face suggests, however, that the opening was provided with a stone 
lining, like a jamb, and that, therefore, the block 
comes from the side of a door in the Roman west 
cross-wall. 

(c) The Prostomiaion and Erechtheis. — The 
westernmost division of the temple, with entrances 
from the outside on north, west, and south, served 
as an antechamber to the central rooms, from 
which it was separated, as we have seen, by a 
sereen wall, probably pierced by two doors. The 
reasons for identifying this room with the Prosto- 
miaion are discussed in the commentary on the 
report of the commissioners of 409 B.c. (pp. 312f.). 

Two opinions have been current as to the level 
of the floor in this part of the building. According 
to the first view,” the course below the orthostates 
of the west wall, which on the outside is cut into 


63 two steps and on the inside is now broken away in 


Figure 102. ROMAN ORTHOSTATE FROM AN — g, ragged line except for a very short distance at 
INTERIOR WALL 


one point, extended in its full thickness across the 

cistern and rested on the projecting foundation of the west cross-wall (Figs. 98, 99). It is 

assumed that the cistern is in part ancient, though probably enlarged in later times, and 

that the extraordinary thickness of the course is due to the absence of any central support 
for so great a span. 

The second theory * holds that the floor of the Prostomiaion, as well as that of the cen- 


1 Roman from the cuttings for = clamps in the top and for Roman dowels in the top and bottom. The cutting 
for a k= clamp shows that it was a Greek block re-used. 

2 This view apparently first appeared in Report Gr. Comm., § 37, and has since been adopted by Lambert, Mé- 
moire, p. 9 (MS. in Bibl. Ec. B.-A., Paris); Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 15-16, 81 (on the authority of 
Dorpfeld), cf. J.-M., Atlas, pls. XXV, C*, XXVI; Julius, Hrechtheion, p. 18; Judeich, Topographie, p. 250; D’Ooge, 
Acropolis, p. 204; Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 102, 104; and others. 

3 This is the theory found e.g., in Middleton, Athenian Buildings, pls. XIII—X VII, and p. 14; Gardner, Ancient 
Athens, pp. 358-359. Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 89, places the pavement at this level, but believes that it was composed 
of separate slabs about twelve feet long, and not cut from the blocks of the wall. 


FLOOR 


162 THE ERECHTHEUM 


tral room,! coincided with the tops of the sills of the north and west doors. The huge stones 
already mentioned extended in their full thickness, it is argued, for only a short distance from 
the wall, and were then cut down to the required level, although this makes them perilously 
thin (0.221 m.), if they were to span the cistern. Such a procedure is not only unsound con- 
struction but wasteful in the highest degree. 

It is not necessary to examine the arguments in support of these two theories, since there 
are compelling reasons for believing that the floor of the Prostomiaion was at a lower level 
than has hitherto been assumed. The evidence is in great measure to be sought in the traces 
of the original construction which still remain about the north and south doorways and 
beneath the course under the orthostates of the west wall. 

The inner vertical face of the sill of the North Door is generally dressed smooth from top 
to bottom, but at the east and the lower part of the west end is the depressed portion of an 
anathyrosis,” and in the upper part of the west end a rabbet has been cut, apparently to re- 


he 9 tu 


Figure 103. NORTH DOOR: SOUTH FACE OF SILL 


ceive the projecting course below the orthostates of the west wall (Fig. 103). Ata distance 
of 0.224 m. below the top of the sill, along its inner vertical face, is a horizontal line, evidently 
scratched to mark the upper surface of blocks once in contact with the sill. It is exactly 
at the level of the under side of the projecting course below the orthostates of the west wall, 
as well as of the bottom of the marble sill on the Roman cross-wall. As the line continues 
across the anathyrosis at the east end, it would seem that this course was laid to the west 
cross-wall, and probably formed the Greek pavement. 

These inferences from the marks on the sill of the door are confirmed by an examination 
of the interior of the west wall (Fig. 105). On the under side of the large blocks below the 
orthostates are dowel holes (PLates X, XI), unconnected with the foundation and left, as 
it were, in mid-air, which must once have been used in securing these blocks to a course be- 
low, now lacking. The east faces of these blocks are now so badly damaged that at only one 
point is a small bit of the original surface preserved, but this suffices to show that the origi- 


1 Both theories presuppose an undivided central room, having a floor level with the top of the sill of the 
North Door. 

> For the probable explanation of these two anathyroses, see below p. 167. 

* This bit of preserved surface begins 0.67 m. from the north end of the second block from the north and extends 
0.115 m. towards the south (Puate IT; Fig. 36). Its maximum height is 0.045 m. At its lower edge, 0.107 m. above 
the bottom of the block, there is a very slight (about 0.0015 m.) projection, which suggests that there sie ane been 


a moulding along the base of the bench formed by this course, such as is found, f i i 
ei ete isla son toe ; ound, for example, in the Tholos at Delphi 


DESCRIPTION 163 


nal projection from the face of the orthostates was 0.51 m. (PLarn XIX; Fig. 104) and that 
the blocks never extended across the room. Beneath this course the poros foundation, for 
part of its length and for a vertical distance varying somewhat irregularly from about 
0.127 m. to 0.14 m., is cut back slightly. 

A marble block (Fig. 104) has also been discovered, which throws further light upon the 
construction of this pavement. It is 0.14 m. thick and has at the back, about 0.127 m. be- 
low the top, a rabbet, which varies somewhat in depth, as if it had been formed by splitting 
along the grain of the marble rather than by chiselling. The upper surface is tooled for a 
width of 0.51 m. from the back and then given a smooth surface, which, from about 0.06 m. 
farther out, shows marks of foot-wearing. Such a stone would fit under the course below the 
orthostates, the rabbet at the back corresponding to the cutting in the poros foundation, 


4#— 9675 ——4# 
t% Soar Sey 


Fieure 104. LEFT: BLOCK FROM PAVEMENT IN PROSTOMIAION: ISOMETRIC. RIGHT: SECTION THROUGH WEST 
WALL AND BOTH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PAVEMENTS, LOOKING SOUTH 


and the smooth surface projecting, as the pavement, beyond the face of the course above. 
Its original position is definitely fixed by the fact that the dowel cutting in the upper surface 
close to the “‘trace of joint”’ corresponds with the cutting at the south end of the northern 
block in the west wall, and it has recently been replaced and secured by a steel support 
(Fig. 105). The upper surface of this pavement block agrees exactly with the level already 
attributed to the pavement from the marks on the threshold of the North Door. Three 
other blocks having the same thickness, and probably from this pavement, are lying in the 
Pandroseum, but are too small and too much damaged to be assigned to their original 
positions. It has been pointed out (p. 103) that the north end of the bench below the ortho- 
states in the west wall was cut away in order to permit the valve of the North Door to swing 
back on that side. This cutting may explain the two peculiar dowels at the north end of the 
pavement block (Fig. 104), as under the circumstances they could easily be leaded from 
above.! 


1 The cutting is 0.05 m. south of the north edge of the paving slab, and the dowels would be concealed even if a 


moulding at the base of the bench were not returned around the sides of the cutting. The surface of the slab is too 
much damaged to yield any definite evidence as to the presence of such a moulding. 


164 THE ERECHTHEUM 


On the south wall, to the east of the doorway leading into the Porch of the Maidens, and 
below the steps at present in situ, is a vertical weather mark, extending down as far as a 
horizontal weather mark which is at the level of the under side of the course below the ortho- 
states in the west wall (PLate XII) and, consequently, at that of the top of the pavement. 
Since the courses of the west wall were naturally carried around this corner, the distance from 
the bottom of the lowest step in the south doorway to the horizontal weather mark is equal 


ee] 


i 


FicureE 105. NORTH END OF CISTERN BENEATH PROSTOMIAION (1922) 


to the height of the bench at the foot of the west wall, and is also equal, with a variation 
reckoned in millimetres, to the height of any two existing steps of the stairway in the Porch 
of the Maidens. It seems certain that the stairway originally had two more steps, extending 
into the Prostomiaion, and that both were formed, like the steps above them, on a single 
block, which rested on the pavement (PLATE I; Fig. 68). There is a cutting for a block of 
the pavement in the lowest marble block below the east jamb of the south door, and weather 
marks at this point show the top and east lines of this stone (PLaTe XII; Fig. 106). That 
the block forming the last two steps now in situ rested on a projecting block is proved by 
the fact that the pressure is relieved from its under surface near the north edge. 


DESCRIPTION 165 


It is now obvious why under the orthostates of the west wall there was only a single BENCH 
course, cut into two steps on the outside, rather than two courses. It was that this course 
might project from the inner face of the wall and form a bench, 0.445 m. high and about 
0.50 m. broad. To the right and left (north and south) of the west door, for 0.60 m. and 


Ficure 106. SOUTH END OF CISTERN BENEATH PROSTOMIAION (SEPTEMBER 9, 1922) 


1.65 m. respectively, the upper part of this bench was formed of a separate block, now 
missing, dowelled to the others (PLatE II). Why this was done is not clear. Perhaps the 
original block was damaged during the building, since the dowels and workmanship show 
that this is part of the Greek construction and not of the later repairs. 

The sills of the west and north doors were raised 0.224 m. above the pavement. In the 
restoration (PLATES I, XV) their level has been continued as a broad step on the east side 


166 THE ERECHTHEUM 


of the North Door as far as the west cross-wall. Such a step would conceal the anathyrosis 
on the sill of the door and yet be sufficiently low to permit the eastern valve of the door to 
fold back against the north wall.1 This step has also been carried along the base of the west 
cross-wall, except in front of the sills of the doors into the central chambers, and returned 
westward along the south wall. The width of the broad step (about three Attic feet), as 
determined from the anathyrosis on the sill of the North Door (Fig. 103), equals the pro- 
jection from the base of the south wall of the bottom step in the stairway leading to the 
Porch of the Maidens, —a significant coincidence, since it brings the north face of both 
steps into line (PLaTE I). It may be added that such a broad step would furnish an ade- 
quate platform for the altars mentioned by Pausanias,’ if they were in this room — a some- 
what doubtful supposition, — or for the exhibition of votive offerings. The open floor be- 
tween the bench on the west and the broad step on the east is sufficiently wide (eight and 
one-half Attic feet) to allow free circulation between the north and south doors. It is quite 
possible, however, that instead of this low broad step there was on the east a bench of the 
same height and width as on the west, and that a portion of the anathyrosis at the east end 
of the sill of the North Door was left exposed. In its inconspicuous position the unfinished 
surface would be less noticeable than, for example, the boss on the east jamb of the North 
Door (Puates VII, XXV). If, as is suggested below, the original plan of the room pro- 
vided for a floor ten Attic feet wide with benches two feet wide on either side, it seems natural 
that, when in the actual building the total width of the room was reduced to thirteen feet 
and the western bench to one foot and one-half, the eastern bench should also be reduced, 
and not replaced by the broader and lower step, with a consequent reduction in the width 
of the floor. It is true that most of the northern end of such a bench must have been cut 
away, if the east valve of the North Door folded back against the north wall, while if it only 
swung as far as the west valve, this end of the bench would have been of very little use 
when the door was open. There is, of course, no evidence for either restoration to be derived 
from the west cross-wall, since none of the original Greek construction remains at this level 
(p. 151) ; nor does the south wall, east of the doorway leading into the Porch of the Maidens, 
furnish anything decisive. The course below the orthostate, although smooth, is not finished 
as a surface of contact, while the orthostate itself has never received its final dressing and 
still shows remains of a boss (PLaTE XII; Fig. 106). This unfinished surface suggests that 
the lower courses were hidden by some object, perhaps an altar or pedestal, which filled 
the corner but was probably not in contact with the wall. It must be admitted that in 
the present state of our knowledge there are no compelling reasons for adopting one resto- 
ration rather than the other. 


‘ On the west side of the door the lower portion of the anathyrosis at this end of the sill was concealed by the 


epee and the west wall; the upper portion was destroyed by the rabbet which received the bench at the base of 
the wall. 


® Pausanias, I, 26, 5. See also Ch. V, pp. 489 ff. 


DESCRIPTION 167 


The following facts indicate that the west room as actually constructed involved a con- 
siderable modification of the original plan. (1) The doors into the North Portico and the 
Porch of the Maidens have the same axis, which is, however, not that of the room itself, 
since the latter extends eight Attic feet east, but only five Attic feet west of this line. (2) 
The west wall is so close to the side of the North Door that the bench at the foot of the wall 
had to be cut back in order to permit the western leaf of the door to open (p. 103). (3) 
On the threshold of the North Door (Fig. 103) the anathyrosis at each end of the south face 
(p. 162) indicates that blocks about two Attic feet in length were expected to abut at these 
points. Indeed, 0.63 m. from the western end, the vertical scratched line which was to 
mark the position of the eastern face of an abutting block is well preserved. At the east end 
of the threshold faint traces of a similar line can with difficulty be detected. That these two 
anathyroses are original is shown by the fact that the relieving of pressure from the inner 
lower edge of the sill is terminated close to the anathyroses and does not extend to the ends 
of the sill (Fig. 103). Since the relieving surface thus stops short of each end, it is clear that 
the ends were to be concealed by symmetrically placed blocks rising above the pavement. 
This intention was not carried out exactly. The bench at the base of the west wall, instead 
of abutting, was, as has been said, set in a rabbet cut into the threshold (Fig. 103, at A), 
and its eastern face extended 0.21 m. beyond the setting line as marked, while it would 
have continued some 0.28 m. farther, had it not been cut away to make room for the leaf of 
the door (Fig. 36). The conditions at the other end of the threshold are, as we have seen, 
uncertain. If the bench was retained with a reduced width, a part of the eastern anathyrosis 
was exposed. If, however, a broad low step was substituted for the bench, the anathyrosis 
was concealed on this side also. The natural explanation of the original dressing is that 
the threshold was cut for a door leading into a room having the same axis as the door itself. 
In that case the actual construction is due to a change of plan. (4) As has been already 
pointed out (p. 154), the great beam which helped to support the ceiling and roof in the 
western part of the temple was not directly over the Greek partition wall, but was one Attic 
foot farther west, that is, on the axis of the later Roman wall. It thus follows that while 
the Greek wall divided this part of the building into two rooms respectively eighteen and 
thirteen Attic feet from east to west, the corresponding divisions of the ceiling, as fixed by the 
beam, measured nineteen and twelve Attic feet, — a discrepancy which it is hard to believe 
formed part of the original plan, but which becomes intelligible if the position of the walls 
had been altered, while the design for the ceiling was left practically unchanged (p. 169). 

If however, as seems probable in view of the facts stated, the west room was planned to 
have the same axis as the two doors, what was to have been the position of the side walls? 
The evidence of the threshold of the North Door indicates that the floor was to have had the 


1 When the Roman restorers substituted their wall for both the Greek wall and the transverse beam, they placed 
it on the axis of the beam, thus avoiding a readjustment of the ceiling, while at the same time availing themselves 
of the cuttings which had been made for the brackets, and also concealing the holes. 


ORIGINAL 
PLAN 


168 THE ERECHTHEUM 


width of the interval between the anathyroses, or ten Attic feet. The total width of the 
room will then depend upon the width assigned to the benches at the base of the enn and 
west walls. Reasonable alternatives for this width are one and one-half or two Attic feet, 
thus giving the room a clear width of thirteen or fourteen Attic feet.! If the former alterna- 
tive be chosen, the width of the benches as planned (0.492 m.) was practically the same as 
that actually given to the bench at the foot of the west wall (0.51 m.; Fig. 104). Each of the 
two side walls would of course have been one Attic foot and one-half west of its present 
position. Such an arrangement is, however, open to some rather serious objections. Since 
the room is only thirteen Attic feet wide, while the threshold of the North Door is fourteen 
Attic feet, the ends of the threshold must have been bonded into the side walls for a short 
distance. The western cross-wall would be one-half an Attic foot west of the axis of the 
great beam, which is almost as unlikely in the original plan as its present position one Attic 
foot to the east. If, as is highly probable, the walls of the Porch of the Maidens were to 
occupy the same relative position to the side walls of the west room (that is, if their outer 
faces were to be in line with the outer faces of the walls of the room), the stairway in the 
porch would be badly crowded, since its upper step would be reduced from two Attic feet in 
width to one-half a foot, which is obviously excessively narrow and only half the width of 
the other steps. 

All these difficulties disappear, if we assume that the room was to have been fourteen 
Attic feet wide with a bench two Attic feet wide on each side. These widths agree with the 
width of the threshold and also with the width of the anathyroses at its ends. The outer 
west wall would be placed two Attic feet farther west, and the cross-wall one foot, thus 
bringing the latter into its natural place beneath the great beam. In the Porch of the Maid- 
ens moving the east wall one foot to the west would reduce the width of the upper step to 
one foot, which is the same as that of the other steps, while widening the porch by one foot 
would remove the present irregularity in the coffers (p. 116), which could then all be square. 
This position of the west wall involves narrowing the small doorway in the North Portico 
about 0.10 m., which would make the opening almost exactly the double square usual in the 
Erechtheum (PuaTe VII). In this case the upper step at the bottom of the west wall would 
partially block the doorway, unless it were reduced to a slightly projecting base resembling 
that at the bottom of the side walls. In the interior the proposed room furnishes plenty of 
space for the puteal above the “‘sea’’ of Poseidon, whether this was in the southwest corner 


1 The width of sixteen Attic feet (twenty Attic feet including the walls) assigned to this room by Dorpfeld in his 
original plan (Ath. Mitt., XXIX, 1904, pp. 102 ff.; cf. Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pl. IIL) assumes that the west cross- 
wall is in its intended position, but that the west outer wall was to stand three Attic feet farther west. This would re- 
duce the width of the smali door in the North Portico from four Attic feet to but little more than two and one-half Attic 
feet, unless indeed the door was not included in the original plan (Jb. kl. Alt., XLVII, 1921, p. 437). It is also hard to 
reconcile with the evidence of the threshold of the North Door, which is now available though not formerly known to 
Dérpfeld, and it leaves unexplained the irregular relation of the west cross-wall and the great beam, —a difficulty, 
however, which does not arise for Dorpfeld, since he holds that the western part of the temple had no other roof than 
a low stone one over the westernmost room (Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 18, 23). For these reasons this width 
seems less probable than the thirteen or fourteen Attic feet suggested in the text. 


DESCRIPTION 169 


or near the centre of the room. So far as the leaves of the North Door are concerned, 
it would be possible to open them somewhat more than 90° without touching the benches 
at the sides; but even if these were cut away, it would not be possible to fold the leaves 
flat against the north wall on account of the proximity of the side walls. It will be noticed 
that on this hypothesis the two divisions in the western part of the temple were intended to 
be respectively nineteen and fourteen Attic feet in width, and that when the west outer wall 
was moved two feet farther east, the west cross-wall was moved one foot, and the reduction 
thus divided equally between the two rooms, which were now eighteen and thirteen Attic 
feet. It was, however, easier to leave the eastern ceiling unchanged and reduce the western 
from fourteen to twelve feet by omitting one row of coffers (Fig. 1114), than it would have 
been to plan entirely new ceilings for narrower rooms.' It is thus clear why the change in the 
position of the walls led to no alteration in the position of the beam. 

The actual remains show that, except for the ceiling, this plan was never more than a 
design, and was indeed definitely abandoned before the foundations were completed. The 
change seems to have been due to unforeseen difficulties in preparing the foundations of the 
west wall at the southwest corner. It is obvious that if this wall had been built two Attic 
feet farther west, the structure at this corner, which the blocks of both south and west walls 
were cut to avoid (pp. 128 ff.), could not have been thus masked, but would have projected 
beyond the line of the west wall into the interior of the temple.? Moreover, if this structure 
extended obliquely to the northwest, the space to be spanned by the great block would 
have become almost impossibly wide. The discovery of this obstacle beneath the terrace 
of the Cecropium may well have made necessary the modification of a plan prepared in 
ignorance of its exact position and extent.’ 

The space beneath the Prostomiaion is now occupied by a large cistern, partly cut in 
the native rock, partly above its level (PLatss IJ, X, XI, XII; Figs. 97,105, 106).* Ever since 
its discovery there has been a general disposition to see in it the successor to the Erechtheis 
or salt ‘‘sea’’ produced by Poseidon,’ which the testimony of Pausanias shows to have 
been within the building, but which, owing to the configuration of the rock, it is not easy 
to place in either of the central chambers. Even when it became clear that the cistern in its 
existing form was mediaeval or Turkish, it seemed more probable that its makers had taken 
advantage of an older receptacle than that they had constructed a wholly new one. The 
removal of the late linings of masonry in 1909 has shown, however, that anciently neither 
the east nor the west wall was water-tight, and that consequently any predecessor of the 

1 For a somewhat different conjectural restoration of this ceiling, see Ch. IV, pp. 408 f.; Fig. 187. 

2 See also the remarks of Dorpfeld, Jb. kl. Alt., XLVII, 1921, p. 436. 

3 It may be noted that if the building had been planned to be two Attic feet longer, places may be found for at 
least four and perhaps for all seven of the superfluous ordinary wall blocks, which were lying on the ground in 409 B.c. 


Cf. Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 93-97, and Commentary, pp. 308. For the possible effect of the change in plan upon 


the treatment of the southwest corner, see p. 175, note 2. 
4 At the southeast corner projecting portions of the poros foundations have also been cut away. 


5 Pausanias, I, 26, 5; Apollodorus, III, 178. See Ch. V, pp. 486 f., 491 f. 


CISTERN 


170 THE ERECHTHEUM 


cistern was probably distinctly smaller; and the same conclusion is indicated by the sur- 
viving slabs of the original pavement, which are too thin to have spanned a large opening. 
It may also be stated positively that the foundation of the west cross-wall is so constructed 
as to exclude the possibility of an opening, like that under the north wall, whereby sub- 
terranean access might be given to the well. It may, therefore, be regarded as certain that 
the visitor to the temple both saw and heard the ‘‘sea” through an opening in the pave- 
ment, doubtless surrounded by a puteal or tpooromov.1 But where was this puteal? A 
definite answer cannot be given, so far have the original conditions been destroyed, but 
there are still some traces which may warrant the hypothetical restoration shown in PLATES 
I and XV. 

In the extreme southwest corner is a shaft about 0.90 m. square sunk in the rock about 
1.75 m., that is, to about 0.14 m. below the bottom of the cistern (Fig. 106). Its southern 
edge is about 0.08 m. to 0.12 m. south of the inner face of the south wall. To the west it 
extends about 0.05 m. under the west wall. In its present form this shaft is doubtless con- 
temporary with the cistern, for the dressing of the sides, though somewhat more careful 
than that elsewhere in the cistern, is of the same general character and closely resembles 
that along the south end. Moreover, the floor of the cistern slopes toward this corner, so 
that the shaft is the natural place for drawing water and also, since its bottom is lower than 
that of the cistern, for emptying the latter completely when it needed cleaning. There are, 
however, some indications which suggest that this shaft may occupy the position of the 
ancient ‘‘sea,’’ or at least of that part which was below the puteal.? On the west side of the 
south door the pilaster on the jamb has not been reduced in width (p. 119) at the bottom, 
and this may well be due to the presence of an abutting block. The face of such a block would 
align exactly with the east face of the shaft and form the eastern side of the curb. In that 
case the north side of the curb would probably have been so placed that its south face was 
directly above the north side of the shaft (PLarss I, D, XV, D; Fig. 68). In the top of the 
south block of course 19 in the west wall (PLaTE X) there is a cutting, running from east to 
west, for a clamp which may have held the top of this north curb to the west wall. It will 
be seen later that the slab which formed the bottom of the niche (p. 172) had an inclination 
toward the west, so as to throw outside of the building the rain which might enter through 
the open south intercolumniation. It would thus serve as a canopy to keep the salt water 
from contamination. It is also possible that the greater elaboration of the mouldings on the 
west wall at this point (p. 61) is connected with the presence of the ‘‘sea,’’ which, as here 
restored, lies entirely within the space east of the south intercolumniation. If this shaft 
were the opening to the sacred “‘sea,”’ it is evident that its position, near, but at one side of, 
the entrance from the Porch of the Maidens, was very similar to that of the altar and the 

* On the meaning of this word, see Ch. IV, p. 312. 


.* The slight extension of the shaft beneath both south and west walls may be attributed to the enlargement con- 


nected with the construction of the cistern. There is no reason to suppose that any part of the ‘‘sea’’ was outside of 
the Erechtheum. 


DESCRIPTION 171 


crypt with reference to the North Door. It must be admitted, however, that there is no 
evidence of any original depression of the rock at this point — although it is possible that 
such evidence has been destroyed in making the cistern, — and it is certainly difficult to 
believe that the Erechtheis was from the beginning purely artificial, even if it be granted 
that it may have been enlarged by human agency.! 

(D) The Niche. — In the southwest corner of the temple the seven upper courses of the 
south wall and the adjacent portion of the west wall are little more than half their proper 
thickness (PLates I, X, XII), so that a recess or niche is formed (Fig. 99), which has always 
been regarded as presenting one of the especially perplexing problems of the Erechtheum. 

The eighth course is also peculiar, but different from those above. It, rather than 
courses 1 to 7, contains what is essential for the reconstruction of the niche, and it may, 
therefore, be considered first. As is seen most clearly in the sections of Figure 107, the two 
blocks of course 8 project beyond the ground of the niche, but at present not so far as the 
inner face of the wall below. The eastern block clearly never extended farther than now 
(Fig. 107, section A-B) ; but the upper half of the face of the western block is broken, showing 
that it once projected beyond the lower half, probably as far as the inner face of the wall 
below (Fig. 107, section C—D). The cutting which occupies the lower half of the face and 
extends into the anta is carefully worked, and the line of its top slopes down from east to 
west, being 0.287 m. high at the east and 0.247 m. at the west end. Such a cutting was 
evidently made to receive a slab of stone which, resting on course 9, would be held in place by 
the projecting part of course 8. A horizontal dowel, which could have been leaded by a hole 
drilled from above, fastened the slab to course 8 in the eastern part of the niche, and, by 
preventing the slab from slipping upward, served the same purpose as the projection in 
the western part. The slab probably rested for the whole of its western side on the upper 
course of the wall in the southern intercolumniation of the West Facade, where it served 
as a coping (PLaTEs XIII, XV). A dowel (Fig. 107, E) of the ordinary Greek type fas- 
tened the slab, at the west end of its south side, to course 9 of the wall, where the cutting 
is still visible in the upper surface of the wall block. This dowel could only have been in- 
serted and leaded before course 8 was in place, which shows that the slab was first laid and 
then the western block (in the anta) of course 8 placed on top of it. It is, therefore, certain 
that this slab was in place in 409 B.c., when the Athenian commissioners drew up their re- 
port, so that it cannot be identified with any of the blocks then on the ground or with any 
of those set in place in later years. 

The downward slope from east to west of the top of the cutting implies a like slope in 


1 Near the centre of the Prostomiaion is a natural hollow in the rock, which even now extends below the floor of 
the cistern (Fig. 106), and, judging from the height of the rock remaining beneath the walls on either side, must once 
have been of considerable depth. The bottom of this hollow is the lowest point reached by the natural rock inside the 
building —- except for narrow fissures, which here can hardly be regarded as significant, — and this would seem a na- 
tural place for the original ‘‘sea.’’ On this hypothesis the puteal would have been near the centre of the room. Against 
this identification must be set the fact that this hollow is by no means watertight; at least water now disappears from 
it more rapidly than from the shaft in the southwest corner. 


THE SHELF 


THE NICHE 


172 THE ERECHTHEUM 


slope is most reasonably explained as a wash to shed 


the rain water, which would enter unimpeded through the open intercolumniation. It 
also warrants the belief that the slab projected for some distance from the niche, and was 
not a mere narrow shelf,! for there would be no occasion to be concerned about the small 
amount of rain falling on such a shelf when compared with the amount entering the build- 


ing through the rest of the sntercolumniation. In Piate XV the slab has been 
drawn as extending to the first column of 


the West Facade, that being the nearest 
natural place of termination. As thus re- 
stored it measures about 2.05 m. from east 
to west and 2.35 m. from north to south, 
not including any projecting mouldings on 
the exposed faces. It thus becomes in effect 
a small platform, the exact purpose of which 
is not clear. It may have had some connec- 
tion with the Cecropium, but it is quite pos- 
sible that it was only intended to keep rain 
from the interior and especially from the 
‘“‘sea,’”’ if that was in the southwest corner. 
It also tended to mask the unsatisfactory ef- 
Ficure 107. PLAN THROUGH COURSE 8 IN NICHE, FROM fect. produced by the sudden diminution in 

ABOVE. SECTIONS*ON LINES A-B AND C-DOF PLAN __ the width of the anta above the eighth course. 


the upper surface of the slab. Such a 


ba ! 2 METRES 


In both plan and sections restorations are shown by On the upper surface of course 8 are va- 
wide hatching. 
rious cuttings for clamps (Fig. 107), which 
have been disregarded in the preceding discussion. Their workmanship and form show that 
they are not part of the original Greek construction, so that they must be assigned to later 
repairs. They were perhaps intended to secure a new facing to course 8, for the platform 
may not have been relaid when the solid wall was constructed at the west end. 

Turning now to the consideration of the niche proper, i. e., the seven upper courses of 
the wall, an examination of the building shows that in the joint between the courses 5 and 6 
and below, the dowels in the south anta of the West Facade are one Attic foot from the west 
face, a position which brings them less than one-quarter of a foot from the east face in the 
lower part of the niche (Fig. 108 at B). In the upper courses the dowels are nearly on the 
axis of the narrow anta between courses 4 and 5, and exactly on the axis in the courses 
above. As the anta below the niche is two Attic feet wide, dowels one foot from either 
edge would be on its axis. It is, therefore, evident that those below the fifth course were 
once on the axis, and that in the niche these blocks of the anta were reduced from their 
original width after the cuttings for the dowels had been made. 


1 As restored in J.-M., Atlas, pl. XXVI. 


DESCRIPTION 173 


On the south wall the horizontal joints between courses 5 and 6, 6 and 7, and 7 and 8 in 
the niche are bad joints, the blocks not having the perfect contact which is regularly found 
in the Erechtheum. In each case the upper stones have a slight bevel to lessen the ragged 
effect of the joint. This unevenness is easily explained if the inner face of these blocks has 
been cut away beyond the line of the anathyrosis, so that the visible horizontal joint comes 
in the slightly roughened, but not appreciably depressed, central portion of the surface of 
contact (Fig. 108). Further proof that the blocks here have been reduced is afforded by 
the first vertical joint from the west in course 6, which is shown in horizontal section in 
Figure 108, at the right. Here it can be seen at a glance that the contact surfaces on the 
exterior and interior of the wall are not in the same straight line, but while that on the ex- 
terior is the regular contact band of the anathyrosis, on the interior this is lacking, and the 


V7 77 


Y 
Z, 


\\ 


A, 


XV 


“Yj 


\N 


Y 


— 931 


SN 


YY yz 


Figure 108. LEFT: TOP OF COURSE 6 IN NICHE, SHOWING EVIDENCE FOR 

CHANGE OF PLAN. RIGHT: HORIZONTAL SECTION THROUGH VERTICAL 

JOINT AT A, SHOWING METHOD OF INSERTING SMALL PIECE OF MARBLE 
TO CLOSE THE JOINT 


WN 


inner face of the wall appears to intersect the depressed centre of the joint. This is actually 
the case, and the marks of the pointed chisel are still to be seen here and there in the polished 
surface of contact close to the inner face of the wall. The notch in the right-hand stone was 
cut to receive a small bit of marble that was slipped in from above to hide the gap between 
the two stones, produced when the inner face was cut away to a greater depth than the 
width of the contact band. 

Course 4 in the niche is behind the roof blocks of the Porch of the Maidens, and was 
formed of the thin slabs already mentioned (pp. 48, 114). Above course 5 the anathyrosis 
runs completely around the horizontal and vertical surfaces, and shows that these stones 
were originally cut for a thin wall. This is confirmed by the traces, in course 4, of a boss 
on the east side of the anta. 

Hence it seems certain that while the platform in the angle at the height of the eighth 
course was planned from the outset, the niche was only decided upon after the wall had 
reached the height of the epistyle of the Porch of the Maidens, or at any rate after the blocks 
were ready up to that height; for it is quite as probable that normal blocks were trimmed 
to the reduced thickness before being placed, as that the completed wall was cut down. 
Whether it was constructed chiefly in order to increase the area of the platform, or in order 


THE 
METOPON 


174 | THE ERECHTHEUM 


to lighten the load which fell on the huge stone spanning the space at ne corner above the 
th certainty. There is much to be said in favor of the latter 


d by constructing the niche, since its floor forms 
eht may be computed as about 6000 kg., 


Cecropium cannot be stated wi 
alternative. Relatively little space is gaine 
a step above the platform, while the saving in wel 


Figure 109. SOUTH WALL: COURSES 1-3 AT SOUTHWEST 
CORNER, FROM EAST, BEFORE THE RESTORATION IN 1908 


which is perhaps one-sixth of the total weight falling on the huge lintel stone at the corner. 
The diminution of the anta as well as of the south wall lends support to this theory. 

It should be noted that the construction of the niche weakened somewhat the support of 
the platform on its south side by putting all the strain on the projecting portion of course 8 
without any help from the courses above it, as was originally intended. Only on the west 
side did the cutting extend far enough for the slab to be weighted by the upper part of the 
anta; but even so the platform was quite strong enough to bear any reasonable weight. 

A series of recessed cuttings of varying depths ! in the face of the south wall, where it is 
of full thickness immediately east of the niche (PLaTEs X, XII, X XVII, 9), shows that on 

1 These cuttings are deepest in courses 1, 3, and 5, less deep in courses 4, 6, and 7. Course 1, pieced together 
from many fragments (Fig. 33), like course 3, just reaches the east edge of the pilaster. Course 2 is missing, but 


this block seems to have been the yacxadaia of the inscription, and to have had the pilaster worked on its face. See 
Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 13, 98, and Commentary, p. 304. 


DESCRIPTION 175 


this side the boundary was a pilaster (PLATE XV; Figs. 99, 109), built up course by course. 
The wall furnishes no evidence as to the extension of this pilaster toward the north, but the 
testimony of the report of the commissioners in 409 B.c.,' where the pilaster appears as the 
uérwrov, Shows that this was the same as that of the west anta.2 

To the east of the pilaster, near the bottom of course 8, is the upper edge of a raised sur- 
face, extending about 0.60 m. to the end of the block. The next stone is badly weathered, 
but the same edge reappears on the following stone, and, descending into course 9, continues 
east as far as the Roman cross-wall, where it descends and finally disappears on the same 
course (PLaTE XII). It resembles the edge of a protecting surface (Werkzoll) such as would 
appear if the wall had been given its final dressing above but not below. However, both 
above and below this edge, as well as in the niche, the surface of the blocks, so far as it is 
preserved, shows Roman tooling, distinctly unlike the Greek dressing farther east. It is 
quite possible, therefore, that this slight difference in plane arose when the wall was worked 
over after the fire and that it did not appear on the original Greek surface.® 

The mouldings of the epicranitis continue from the exterior around the anta and finish 
against the ground of the niche, but in the interior the egg-and-dart and other ornaments 
were not sculptured (Fig. 109). There is, however, on these mouldings, a series of vertical 
incised lines which were probably used in laying out a painted decoration. Similar mould- 
ings were undoubtedly carried around the capital of the pilaster from the adjacent wall, 
but the south side of the wall in the niche, which is preserved, was left plain (PLATE XII; 
Figs. 99, 111 B). 

None of the Greek epistyle from the southwest corner has survived, but from indications 
on the top of the epicranitis it is to be inferred that on the south it had the width of the 
wall of the niche and on the west was slightly narrower than the north face of the anta.! Of 


! For the interpretation of this passage, see Ch. IV, Inscription II, Commentary, pp. 301 ff., and L. D. Caskey 
and B. H. Hill, ‘The Metopon in the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., XII, 1908, pp. 184-197. 

2 It is perhaps scarcely profitable to elaborate the hypothetical details of a plan which was never executed, but it 
may be well, nevertheless, to consider the possible treatment of the niche with its ‘‘metopon”’ and inclined shelf or 
floor, if the west wall had been given its intended position, two Attic feet farther west. Three hypotheses may be 
reasonably considered. (1) The dimensions of the niche and its surroundings remained unchanged, but it was to have 
been two Attic feet farther west. In this case the east side of the ‘‘metopon”’ would have been over the reveal of the 
west jamb of the south door, and the design for the ceiling over this corner — whatever that may have been — would 
have been the same in the original plan as in the actual building. (2) Since some of the blocks of the southwest anta 
were certainly cut on the supposition that it was to have its full thickness, it is possible to suppose that the anta was 
to have been two Attic feet wide, the niche five Attic feet, as at present, and the ‘‘metopon”’ either three-quarters of 
an Attic foot, as it was constructed, or, perhaps more probably in view of the heavier anta, one Attic foot. In this case 
the east edge of the niche would be over the west jamb of the door and the ‘‘metopon”’ itself over the corner of the 
doorway. (3) The east face of the ‘‘metopon”’ may be taken as fixed above the axis of the door, and the nine Attic 
feet between this point and the west face of the anta divided among the ‘‘metopon,”’ niche, and anta in various ways, 
according as we suppose the former to have been three-quarters, or one, or even two Attic feet wide, and the latter 
one and one-quarter or two Attic feet. A fair arrangement of the three elements would seem to be 1:6:2. 

3 It is also possible that the wall was slightly dressed back when the church was built, to receive a beam of the 
roof over the narthex (PLATE XXXII, section looking south); see Ch. V, p. 516. 

4 The width of the epistylion over the south intercolumniation and the north part of the anta was apparently 
about 0.366 m. (the north face of the anta is 0.405 m.; ef. Figs. 44, 110), but at the south end the return along the south 


EPICRA- 
NITIS 


176 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the two Greek dowel cuttings in the top of the epicranitis (Fig. 110), the one on the south 
wall,! indicated by dotted lines and now concealed by a modern iron bar, held the western 
end of the architrave on that wall, which thus had a length of only seven Attic feet instead 
of the usual eight. The other dowel, in the capital of the anta,? secured the epistyle which 
spanned the south intercolumniation. This dowel seems to have been leaded from the east 
—a very difficult operation if the epistyle had the normal width, but easy if it was reduced 
to correspond with the narrow anta, since in that case the dowel was only about 0.06 m. 


—1 GREEK |ke— 


AROMAT Ted = 


f 


ie ey 
rN / , 


Ait 


18 2008 Feces ee TU ee Tee 
2k 


ROMAN . 


re 
eS 
2, ee ee alla 
& A i . La | A 
pal 8 Ce ake 
yy i Beccvaarcerigerc ernest DiS 
Tereiisicnites tees ee Bre. 
is iter seas e = ree 
bors, MODERN /RON 
0 if i uaa, tS - \ 


1M 


Figur 110. PLAN OF EPICRANITIS AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN BUILDING. UPPER RIGHT CORNER: 
RESTORED PLAN OF GREEK ARCHITRAVE 


from its east edge. Moreover, on the east side of the capital of the anta the pressure is not 
relieved, as it should be in order to protect the mouldings, if the epistyle overhung the 
capital. A special treatment of the epistyle in this corner is also implied by the building 
accounts, which show that in the western part of the interior one hundred and thirteen 
feet of epistyle were painted under a single contract.? This distance can be obtained by 
leaving the painting in the south and west sides of the niche to a separate contract, which 
is hardly natural if there was no difference in the epistyle at this point. It will be re- 


wall was about 0.67 m. from east to west, as is shown by the position of the dowel which held the west end of the ad- 
joining block on the wall (Fig. 110). 

1 The two dowel cuttings (one with a pour channel) west of this Greek cutting are Roman and held the Roman 
architrave on the south wall. The south end of the Roman west architrave is marked by a weather line and pry hole 
north of these two dowels (pp. 71 ff.; Figs. 47, 48). 

° The north half of this cutting appears to be Greek; the south half was recut during the Roman alterations. 

3 See B. H. Hill, ‘Structural Notes on the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., XIV, 1910, pp. 291-297, and below, Ch. IV, 
Inscription XIII, col. 1, ll. 45 ff., Commentary, pp. 410 f. 


) 


ij 


(B) RECONSTRUCTION 


OF SOUTHWEST CORNER, SHOWING TRANSVERSE BEAM, METOPON, NICHE, AND 


Ficurr 111. (A) PLAN OF CEILING OVER WEST ROOMS: RESTORED. 


COFFERED WOODEN CEILING: ISOMETRIC 


feeu777 al 


178 THE ERECHTHEUM 


membered that the west frieze and pediment had no backing at the south end, and that 
the cornice at this corner was seven and one-half Attic feet in length (p. 74), apparently 
in order that its east end might thus have a firm bed over the metopon.' All these facts 
suggest that the light construction was carried up through architrave and frieze. Such an 
arrangement not only further decreases the weight at this corner, but also gives a better 
effect to the upper part of the niche, which thus finishes against the ceiling. It is also con- 
sistent with a satisfactory solution of the problem of arranging the ceiling in this corner, 
as may be seen from the conjectural plan and isometric restoration (Fig. 111 4, B). 

(x) Temporary Repairs before the Roman Restoration. — In the course of this descrip- 
tion there have been frequent references to a fire which seriously injured the interior of the 
Erechtheum and led to somewhat extensive rebuilding, especially at the west end. The 
date of the fire is unknown, but the rebuilding appears to have been carried out near the 
end of the first century B.c., at about the same time as the erection of the temple of Rome 
and Augustus.? There are indications, however, that before this permanent restoration, the 
western part of the temple had received a temporary covering. The evidence is furnished 
by a number of small, neatly bored holes in the north and south walls and in the antae of 
the west wall.* 

In course 9 of the north wall a series of forty-five holes begins above the Greek cross- 
wall and continues, sloping very slightly downwards, to the east, as far as the surface of 
the course is preserved (PLATE XI).* In course 8, above the second hole from the west, 
are four holes in a line which inclines slightly toward the west of the vertical as it rises. 
Above, in course 7, are three more holes in the prolongation of this line. The uppermost of 
the three is also the first of another group of three extending in a descending line toward the 
west. No holes are to be found in the inserted Roman block which is next on the west in 
this course, but another hole in the same line is visible in the Greek block beyond the Roman 
one. There are no holes in the Roman lintel over the North Door, but the line is continued 
by five holes in course 9 on the south face of the north anta of the west wall, west of the in- 
tercolumnar wall (Figs. 40, 46) ; the original east side of the anta has been cut away (p. 69). 

On the south wall a row of eighteen holes begins in course 8 in the space once filled by 
the metopon, continues, sloping downward toward the west, across the blocks once behind 
the shelf, and ends in course 9 on the north face of the south anta (PLaTe XII: Fig. 43) at 
the same height as the holes on the north anta. It is obvious that when these holes were 


1 See also Ch. IV, Inscription X, col. 1, Il. 29 ff.; Commentary, pp. 356 ff. 

* On the date see Ch. V, pp. 478 f. 
; * The suggestion that these holes were connected with the laying of a temporary roof before the Roman restoration 
is due to L. B. Holland. Hitherto these holes, if noticed at all, have been left unexplained as, for example, by J. Woods, 
Letters of an Architect, II, p. 256. A similar series of holes is found in the south wall of the northeast hall of the Pro- 
pylaea; it begins behind the anta, and extends in a rising line along the side of the wall to the level of the roof at the 
west corner. 

4 The cuttings for beams above these holes are neither Greek nor Roman, and are probably connected with the 
transformation of the Erechtheum into a Turkish house; see Ch. V, p. 524. 


DESCRIPTION 179 


bored both metopon and shelf had disappeared. Courses 8 and 7 between the metopon and 
the west cross-wall are so badly damaged (Fig. 99) that it is impossible to say whether the 
holes continued across them; but if the series was prolonged in the line of the existing holes, 
it attained in course 7, at the west face of the Greek west cross-wall, the same height as the 
uppermost holes in the north wall. East of the west cross-wall the south wall above the 
orthostates has been almost entirely rebuilt, and few of the blocks are in their original po- 
sitions or have retained their original surfaces. It is not surprising, therefore, that no holes 
can now be found which correspond to the long series in course 9 of the north wall. 

The date of these holes may be fixed within certain limits. They are later than some 
disaster — presumably the great fire, — which destroyed the metopon and shelf. They are 
earlier than the Roman repairs, for in the north wall the western series is interrupted wher- 
ever the Greek blocks have been replaced by Roman. Their purpose can hardly be other 
than to furnish points where nails could be securely fastened into the marble, either by 
setting them in lead, or by driving them into wooden plugs inserted in the holes.!. We may 
reasonably conjecture that after the fire a temporary roof was constructed over the Pro- 
stomiaion, having its highest point over the Greek cross-wall ai about the height of the 
middle of course 7, and sloping downward until it ended in eaves projecting beyond the 
face of the west wall in course 9; the upper courses of the intercolumnar west wall, like the 
shelf in the southwest corner, were presumably damaged by the fire and consequently cut 
away. To close the joints between the side walls and the wooden roof a sheet of lead, or 
perhaps hides, would be securely nailed on the outside to both walls and roof. 

Over the central division of the temple the construction of the temporary roof was ap- 
parently not the same as over the Prostomiaion. The eastern series of holes in the north 
wall, on account of their gradual inclination, can hardly have been along the side of a roof, 
like the holes of the western series, for such a roof would have been too flat to shed rain 
rapidly. Nor can the series have been along the highest part of a roof sloping down toward 
the south, for in that case the line would have been horizontal, not inclined. If, however, 
these holes were bored to aid in closing the joint at the bottom of a roof sloping down from 
the south, the inclination is easily understood, since at this point a gently sloping gutter 
would be needed to carry off the rain. Moreover, if this roof had the same inclination as 
the roof over the Prostomiaion, it would reach the same height on the axis of the temple, 
that is, over the assumed position of the wall dividing the two central chambers (PLaTE I), 
— a coincidence which furnishes an additional reason for believing in the presence of a wall 
at this point. It is probable that the western cross-wall was carried up to the height of 
course 7 in order that a roof projecting over the old intercolumnar wall might have a suff- 
cient pitch to shed water easily. The dividing wall between the central chambers would 
naturally be given the same height as the cross-wall, and the eastern roof the same pitch as 


1 Traces of lead filling are found in similar holes in the inner face of the lintel over the west door; but these holes 
have no apparent connection with those in the side walls, and may well belong to Christian or Turkish alterations. 


180 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the western. In view of the lack of evidence as to the existence of similar holes 
south wall it is impossible to say whether the eastern roof covered both central 
or was confined to the northern one, beneath which was probably the entrance to 
under the North Portico. Nor can it be determined with certainty how tlk 
conducted from this roof, though an opening in the side wall is perhaps the 
hypothesis. 


CHAPTER II 


NOTES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


Ir is not the purpose of this chapter to describe in detail Greek architectural construction. 
It aims rather at presenting systematically the evidence afforded by the existing remains 
of the Erechtheum as to the materials, tools, and methods employed by its builders. The 
epigraphical evidence is discussed in the commentary on the inscriptions (Chapter IV), 
and the methods of later restorers in the history of the building (Chapter V). 


I. VARIETIES OF STONE 


The yellowish-brown, somewhat soft, fossiliferous limestone from the Piraeus (ékrirns \iGos), 
or poros (répos),1 as it is commonly called, is employed in the foundations. The only excep- 
tions seem to be beneath the podium of the Porch of the Maidens and the steps of the south 
wall, where the foundations of the peristyle of the Old Temple, composed of the hard lime- 
stone commonly called Kara stone, were retained (Puatss I, II), and at the south end of 
the west foundations (p. 14) and the sides of the low doorway into the crypt (p. 5), where 
marble was used, probably on account of its greater strength. Another variety of poros, 
from Aegina (Aty.vaios \idos), was used, according to the inscriptions, for the backers of the 
frieze on the north and south walls of the temple, where these backers were concealed by 
the ceiling.? 

The visible parts of the building, except the friezes, were of Pentelic marble. The walls 
were generally of marble throughout, even when, as at the east end of the north wall, only 
one face was exposed; but in the south wall the three orthostates west of the poros founda- 
tion (PLATE XII) were backed on the outside by two courses of poros, and farther east some 
of the marble blocks above the foundations were also given a poros backing. 

The friezes were of the hard, bluish-black lumestone from Eleusis (’EXevowvtakds iBos).* 
In the recent restoration missing portions have been replaced by blue upper Pentelic 
marble. Some of the early descriptions of the frieze say that it was coated with fine 
stucco highly polished, but this statement is evidently erroneous, as no trace of such treat- 
ment now remains, and indeed the surface of the stone shows that no such coating was ever 
applied.‘ 


1 On poros cf. H. S. Washington, A. J. A., XX VII, 1923, pp. 445, 446. 

2 See Ch. IV, Inscription VIII 4, ll. 13, 37, and Commentary, pp. 350 ff.; Fig. 187. 

3 The Eleusinian stone was also used elsewhere in the building, for the dimensions of two of the blocks listed in 
the report of the commissioners of 409 n.c. are not those of the frieze; see Ch. IV, Inscription V 4, 1. 26, and Com- 
mentary, p. 319. The position of these blocks is unknown. 

4 Kinnard in Stuart and Revett?, Vol. II, p. 72, note c, — “‘ Frieze of bluish-gray stone covered with cement laid 
on in two coats, the outer one beautifully polished, and of the colour of the marble.”’ This is given on the author- 


181 


182 THE ERECHTHEUM 


II. DRESSING OF THE SURFACES OF STONES 


roots Marks remaining on the stones of the Erechtheum show that the following tools werg 

used in preparing them for their place in the building: — flat, pointed, and toothed chisels, 
pointed and bush hammers, and drills. 

A flat chisel was regularly employed in cutting the holes for dowels and clamps; it was of 

the same width as the slot, namely about 0.015 m. In dressing the surfaces of stones, how- 


Figure 112. PASSAGE UNDER NORTH WALL FROM CRYPT: WEST SIDE FROM NORTH, 
SHOWING DRESSING OF SURFACES OF STONES 


ever, this form of chisel was apparently seldom used, though one, 0.035 m. wide, has left 

traces on some beds, and another, 0.05 m. wide, was chosen for dressing the bed of the frieze 

on a Greek architrave block. . 
The pointed chisel was used to cut pry holes and shift holes, and marks of this tool 


ity of “an ingenious architectural friend, whose accuracy and acuteness of perception we can rely on.” This 
“friend”? was Joseph L. Wolfe, who has the same note on the frieze (App. A, XVII). Wilkins, Prolus. Archit., 
p. 46, — “The external face of the zophorus, being coated with a very fine cement, had assimilated in colour with the 
marble of the building, so as to be deceptive, except upon minute inspection.” That the condition of the frieze was 
responsible for this error seems indicated by J. Woods, Letters of an Architect, II, p. 255, — ‘The black marble having 
lost its polish and being stained by the weather, and perhaps by lichens, has changed its hue into a dull gray, and has 
been passed over without notice of the material. I believe Mr. Bedford was the first to notice it.”” This letter is dated 
in March, 1818. Exposure has produced on some of the blocks a pale brown patina which may have been mistaken 
for stucco. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 183 


are also found on the ordinary surfaces in the poros foundations (the contact bands were 
dressed with a toothed chisel), on the backs of many of the figures of the frieze, on the backs 
of Roman blocks,’ and in the depressed centres of Roman anathyroses. It was also em- 
ployed, with the pointed hammer, in cutting the depressed portion at the ends of Greek 
blocks (see below), and in dressing the somewhat rough marble blocks in the west wall near 
the Cecropium (p. 58). 

The toothed chisel was used in dressing down the Kara stone in the euthynteria of the 
Old Temple to serve as a foundation under the Porch of the Maidens, and in preparing con- 
tact surfaces in the poros foundations and in the beds of Greek blocks generally. The backs 
of the figures of the frieze were often dressed with the toothed as well as with the pointed 
chisel. It is often possible to determine the width of the chisel and the number of the teeth; 
for example, chisels 0.05 m. wide with 12 and 16 teeth, 0.042 m. wide with 8 teeth, 0.02 m. 
wide with 6 teeth, and a very fine tool only 0.015 m. wide with 8 teeth. One stone bears 
marks of coarse and fine toothed chisels and a flat chisel. The anathyrosis in the drums of 
the columns of the North Portico shows traces of a toothed chisel, though the final surface 
is here due to rubbing, probably by turning of the upper drum on the lower through a 
small are. 

Marks of the pointed hammer alone are found on the backs of certain Greek blocks, as, 
for example, some of those used where the wall is two courses in thickness. 

Traces of the bush hammer are found on Roman beds, on the bottom of at least one 
ordinary Greek wall block, and on a Greek stone on the west:side of the small door into 
the crypt under the North Portico (Fig. 112). In this stone a series of horizontal grooves, 
0.055 m. apart, was cut with a pointed chisel, and the surface then cross-dressed with a 
bush hammer to bring it to a rough finish. This operation may have been carried out at 
the quarry.’ 

The drill was used for boring holes, such as those in the rosettes on the jambs of the 
North Door and in the centres of the coffers of the North Portico, or the smaller holes for 
the pins which replaced dowels in the plinths and abaci of the Porch of the Maidens (p. 112), 
served to attach inserted beads and reels in the astragalus, and secured the left arm of the 
Maiden at the southeast corner of the porch. A very small drill was employed in boring a 
hole, only 0.0025 m. in diameter, for an earring in the left ear of the same Maiden; the right 
ear is missing, and, so far as can now be seen, there was no similar hole in the ear of any 
other figure. The grooves in the volutes of the capitals were made by drilling a series of 
holes close together and then cutting away the marble between. Traces of these holes can 
still be found in some of the volutes of the East Portico (p. 23). The same process was 
adopted in making some of the holes for dowels in the backs of the figures of the frieze. The 


1 Roman blocks are those dressed for the Roman restoration; Greek blocks are those belonging to the original 
Greek construction. 

2 Nilsson, J. H. S., XXI, 1901, p. 328, considers that this stone was taken from some other building, as it has a 
clamp cutting in the bottom and a ‘“‘mortise hole” in the top. 


DRESSING 
OF 
SURFACES 


ANATHY- 
ROSIS 


184 THE ERECHTHEUM 


drill was also frequently employed in cutting the folds of the drapery of these figures, but 
there seem to be no traces of its use on the statues of the Maidens. 

In addition to the coarser tools for ordinary operations, it is certain that exceedingly 
fine and well-tempered instruments must have been used in executing the delicate mould- 
ings which play so important a part in the decoration of the Erechtheum. A good example 
of the perfect accuracy attained in this carving may be seen in Figure 113, which shows part 
of the sharply defined ridge, or sheath, at the bottom of an egg in the moulding on a beam 
of the North Portico. Some defect in the marble made it necessary 
to cut this bit separately, but the work was executed with such 
precision that the inserted piece was held firmly without any 
artificial attachment.! It would seem that a file must have been 
used in this operation. 

In preparing the stones for their place in the building, all 
contact surfaces were first made perfectly smooth; then, in order 
to get a close joint at the visible edges, on the ends of the stone F¢urr 113. SHEATH OF AN 

¥ EGG, CARVED AS A SEPARATE 
the centre was depressed, generally with a pointed chisel, leaving PIECE AND INSERTED: 
a smooth band at the sides and top, and this latter band was in 2 FULL SIZE 
turn very slightly depressed with the toothed chisel.2, On the top and bottom of the stone, 
however, since the weight of the wall required a larger surface in actual contact, only a very 
shallow depression (ca. 0.0005 m.) was cut with the toothed chisel, leaving a slightly raised 
smooth band about 0.08 m. to 0.10 m. wide toward the exposed faces. On the top of the 
stone this depression was cut after the blocks of the course were in place, as part of the 
émepyacia, or dressing of the upper surface in preparation for the next course. The top and 
bottom of column drums were treated in the same way as wall blocks. 

The smooth contact band (dva6ipwois) is three-sided on the ends of most wall blocks 
— if the very shallow depression at the top is not considered, — and is generally about 
0.07 m. wide. The depressed tentre on the ends varies between 0.01 m. and 0.003 m. in 
depth, with a probable average of about 0.005 m. In Roman work this centre is less well 
executed and not so deep, being little more than dressing with a bush hammer or a 
pointed chisel. On the column drums of the North Portico the anathyrosis has a width 
of 0.132 m., measured from the inside of the flute, and the cutting for the empolion is 
exactly in the centre of the very slight depression made by the toothed chisel. The details 
and variations in anathyrosis in different parts of the building are shown, where accurate 
determination was possible, on many of the plates and figures: for example, in the blocks 
of the wall on Phat XXVIII and Figures 17 and 31; in tiles on PLares XVII and XXIV : 


? In making the drawing the piece was removed, traced, and then slipped back into its original place; see p. 210. 


* The very shallow depression in the upper band was to ensure perfect contact at the edges by removing all 
danger of the centre rising higher than the sides. 


* On the érepyacia see Ch. IV, p. 344. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 185 


and in the entablature on the plates giving details of the East and West Facades, the 
North Portico, and the Porch of the Maidens. 

Wherever there would be a tendency for a block to chip or crack at a visible joint by 
pressure from above or in the setting of the block itself, the danger is obviated by cutting 
back either the upper or the lower surface of the bed so as to relieve the pressure on the edge 
and throw it toward the centre of the block. This treatment is particularly important where 
the position of the blocks was fixed by an incised line, for in such cases the exposed vertical 
faces must have been completely finished at the bottom before the block was laid, and thus 
the risk of damage much increased. In Greek work this cutting, about 0.001 m. high, is 
carried back horizontally a varying distance; for example, for steps about 0.015 m. and at 
the bottom of the jambs of the windows in the east front about 0.04 m. (Fig. 27). In the 
Roman windows of the west end, at the bottom of the jambs, a slight bevel replaces the 
horizontal cutting (PLaTE XIX). 

Pressure is relieved, for example, at the bottom of the stones of the frieze (PLATES XVI, 
XVIII, XXII, XXIII); on the outer edge of steps; at the bottom of the drapery of the 
Maidens; in both joints of the bases of the east columns and antae (PLATres XVI, XVIII), 
and on the tops of the capitals in order to protect the egg-and-dart moulding when the 
architrave was set; beneath the sills of the south and the north doors (Fig. 103); and at the 
bottoms of courses 18 (orthostates) and 19 in the south wall west of the east cross-wall. 
Numerous other examples may be found on Phares XXIX and XXX. On the west face of 
the podium of the Porch of the Maidens, and to some extent elsewhere in the building, the 
edge is protected by leaving a slight projection (Randbeschlag) on the face of the stone, 
which was removed when the wall was given its final dressing. 

In various parts of the Erechtheum lines are found scratched or incised on the blocks, 
either to guide the stonecutter, or to mark the position of the block above. Thus, on the 
main building the frieze was set to a scratch on the epistyle, and in the central intercolum- 
niation of the West Facade, a scratch on the moulded base at right angles to the face of the 
wall indicated the position of the joint above in the Roman reconstruction (Fig. 41). 
Scratches respectively parallel to the east and north steps of the East Portico, and conse- 
quently at right angles to each other, mark the centre of the base of the north column of 
that Portico (PLATE XVIII, 2), and similar scratches the position of the lewis hole in its 
capital (Fig. 134). Incised circles appear on the tops of the bases of the second, third, fourth, 
and fifth columns from the south in the East Portico. The base of the southeast corner 
column is too badly weathered to show the scratch, if it ever existed. The circles are about 
0.16 m. to 0.18 m. from the edge of the base, and about 0.12 m. within the edge of the drum 
above. Their purpose is uncertain, as they seem too far in to have helped in setting the 
drum, although they may possibly have been drawn to aid in cutting the base to an exact 
circle. More probably they indicate the extent of the tooling in the joint in order to secure 
a true bed toward the outside. Scratches to aid the cutting are also found on the Greek 


RELIEF OF 
PRESSURE 


SCRATCHED 
LINES 


MASONS’ 
MARKS 


MITRING 


DRESSING 
OF BEDS 


186 THE ERECHTHEUM 


column bases at the west end (Fig. 41) ; and on the under side of the shaft of a Roman coluna 
cross lines mark the centre (PLaTE XIX, 3). In the south wall course 20 was set fe a line on 
the top of the poros course below. In the North Portico the beams vice set to lines on the 
epistyle, and in the Porch of the Maidens the plinths to lines on ae podium. On the capital 
of the Maiden at the southeast corner the position of the pins which held the abacus, and on 
the head of the next Maiden toward the west the position of pins which aided in securing 
the capital were indicated by scratches, while on the southeast capital again radii were 
drawn to aid in spacing the egg-and-dart ornament. On the base of the southern column 
on the east side of the North Portico horizontal and vertical scratches fixed the centres 
of the eyes in the middle row of the guilloche; elsewhere in the guilloche the centres of the 
eyes were marked only by a dot. 

Masons’ marks are not common on the Erechtheum and those that occur are almost 
without exception Roman. The only Greek marks noted were a small A and B on adjacent 
pieces (0.57 m. and 0.65 m. long) of egg-and-dart moulding inserted in the epistyle of the 
North Portico. Roman marks appear on cornice blocks from the sides of the main build- 
ing (Fig. 114, A, B, C; the form of the letter on © is not perfectly certain), including two 
from the north side over the North Portico, as is indicated by their uncarved nosing (Fig. 
114, D, E); on the epistyle block above the second intercolumniation from the south in the 
West Facade at the corner of the upper surface (Fig. 114, F); and on the frieze blocks of 
the same facade (PLaTrE XX, 10). A B appears on a cornice block of the North Portico 
re-used by the Romans (Fig. 60), and a f on a fragment of raking cornice also from the 
North Portico (Fig. 114, G) and re-used by the Romans. Both blocks are now (1926) near 
the northwest corner of the foundation of the peristyle of the Old Temple of Athena. 

Mouldings are generally carefully mitred at all angles, as is well shown by the bases of 
the pilasters on the inside of the west wall (PLatE XX, 11, 12), and also by the base of the 
east anta of the North Portico, where the mouldings are mitred on the east with the base 
mouldings of the north wall. At the junction of the east cornice of the North Portico with 
the wall of the main building, the epicranitis is so cut that the cornice fits into it. The 
epicranitis was here left uncarved, as the sima of the North Portico hid it from view 
(PuaTE VII). 

In general the bed for each course is dressed to a uniform level, but there are some cases 
where exigencies of construction required a special cutting. Thus, in the foundations of the 
north wall course 23 was cut down on the outside to receive the marble pavement north of 
the Erechtheum, and course 22 on the inside for the middle step of the wall and its backer 
(Fig. 1). The poros foundation of the North Portico and the course of Kara stone under 
the south wall are slightly sunk to receive the marble steps which rest on them. Around the 
North Portico, also, the poros foundations are dressed in a straight line (Fig. 115), appar- 
ently either to form a neat euthynteria, or perhaps to receive a flagging which has now dis- 
appeared. On the south wall, behind the Porch of the Maidens, course 5 was clamped and 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 187 


prepared in the ordinary way, and then cut down along the south side to receive the ceiling 
beams of the Porch, leaving, however, traces of one of the set of clamps cut away. The two 
central cornice blocks of the East Portico show a somewhat irregular dressing down of the 
upper surface, probably because this was found to be the most convenient way to adjust the 


luutiuf 196m 


Figure 114. MASONS’ MARKS 


central block of the tympanum, which was the first stone laid, to its correct position and 
height (PLaTE XXI, 2). Similarly in the western part of course 21 of the south wall a bed 
was cut in the poros blocks for the marble of course 20 (p. 12), and in the north wall block 4 
in course 19 (Fig. 88) rests in a depressed bed prepared in course 20. 

The weather lines which appear on various parts of the Erechtheum are sometimes use- wraTHER 
ful in the reconstruction, as showing the limits of covering parts now lacking. Such lines “NFS 
are found, for example, on the horizontal cornice under both east and west pediments, and 


1 See Ch. I, p. 114, and Phares XXVII, 9, XXVIII. 


HOISTING 
STONES 


188 THE ERECHTHEUM 


at the southeast angle a weather line aids in determining the width of the raking cornice 
where it rested on the horizontal cornice (PLATE XXI, 2). On the capital of the southwest 
anta two weather lines show the different positions of the west face of the epistyle in the 
original Greek construction and in the Roman restoration (Fig. 110). So also a weather line 
on the roof of the Porch of the Maidens shows the projection of a thin course in the south 


ea an 
eee An 
SES Sr QNQIRSI GFA UN A 


=< WK WN Vp 


Ul 


hl 


Re SSAA ASS RE AGEL 


ll 


ki ey Z f : yyy) = OT PON ITE LATA SU DAAC 
PLC AKY :ZEU Lo- wt és > } Ze WY Zy, NY 
WE GTRAA SS Ea 273 Ne MU LHANGY «=X 
BGA RI ZACH AU Ly dee Cy ON GM he TENG || gf (is ¥ 
ds RA 3 uo Ge ; S eas Usa N We wees 
«CZ AAG /, : A Cty sa! uf EN al(fee* fa: 
Ma 3 Ladle ee yi aN Yiller,- 
AMMA = Nanton SH] eal y 
> 


nO Goa: 


Figure 115. TYPICAL PORTION OF FOUNDATION ON WEST SIDE OF NORTH PORTICO 


wall which rested on the roof (PLaTE X XVII, 2) and of which only a fragment of the south 
edge has survived; and on the roof of the North Portico a line on the face of the block form- 
ing the west side of the opening gives with approximate accuracy the width of the missing 
block on the north side.! 


III. Hoisting, SETTING, AND SECURING STONES 


The blocks of the Erechtheum contain numerous cuttings intended to aid in hoisting them 
into place, adjusting them properly, and finally securing them firmly in the desired 
position. 

Of the cuttings connected with the methods of hoisting, the most important are the 
lewis holes, which in Greek work are always undercut on one side, while in Roman they may 
be undercut either on one side, or, as in modern usage, on two, the latter being more 


1 For the weather line on the cornice of the North Portico, showing the early loss of the sima on the east and 
west sides, see Ch. I, p. 97; Puare VIII, 4. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 189 


common.’ In the Greek construction lewis holes are not found in the ordinary stones of 
the wall, but occur regularly in the capitals of columns and antae (Fig. 128), and sometimes 
in architrave and cornice blocks. In the Porch of the Maidens there is a lewis hole in the 
shaft of the west anta, as well as in the capital (PLarr XXVII, 7). In the capitals of the 
Kast Portico the cutting is placed with its long axis on one axis of the capital, but at the 
same time not directly over the centre, in order that the stone, when lowered into place, 
may first touch its bed on one point, and thus be more easily adjusted (PLATE XVI; Fig. 
134). A similar arrangement was adopted in the stone to the east of the centre in the 
pediment of the North Portico, where the lewis is placed somewhat nearer the front of the 
stone than the point where a line drawn through the centre of gravity of the stone per- 
pendicular to the base intersects the top. This stone was replaced by the Roman repairers 
and the present lewis hole is two-sided, but it may well be an enlargement of a Greek cut- 
ting (PLATE VIII, 4).? 

In the Roman reconstruction of the West Facade the lewis was frequently used. Double 
undercut lewises are found in the ordinary blocks of the intercolumnar wall, in the drum of 
a column between the shaft and the capital, in the capitals, the architrave, and the hori- 
zontal cornice, where some seem to have been made in re-used Greek blocks. One-sided 
Roman cuttings appear also in the jambs, lintels, and sills of the west windows, in the angle 
block of the raking cornice (PLATE XX, 1), and in at least one Roman cornice block from 
the side of the main building. In the North Door the block with the console carved upon 
it and the upper stone of the lintel have each a hole for a two-sided lewis, the hole in the 
latter being 0.11 m. long on top, 0.035 m. wide, and 0.10 m. deep (PLate XXV, 4, 5). 

Cuttings in the ends of stones for hoisting tongs have been observed only in the coffers 
of the North Portico. On the block in London these cuttings are in the sides, as one end was 
exposed by the opening in the roof. They may be distinguished from shift holes in that they 
are deeper and placed lower on the face of the stone. 

Besides the shift holes, which need not be, and frequently are not, in the centre of the 
stone, the edges of stones at the bottom are sometimes rounded in the centre, apparently 
for a hoisting rope or chain. Thus the east stone of the ceiling of the Porch of the Maidens 
shows both this rounding and a shift hole. 

In addition to these cuttings for hoisting apparatus many of the marble blocks of the 
Erechtheum show remains of projecting bosses, which were perhaps intended to furnish a 
hold for lifting tongs to catch upon, or leverage for a crowbar. They seem in general too 
small and too irregular to serve as points of attachment for ropes.’ 

1 Cf. Clarke, Assos, 1882-1883, 1, pp. 126 ff., fig. 25; Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, pp. 
100-101, figs. 53, 54. 

2 Two Greek lewis holes in the North Portico have the following dimensions: — In the capital of the southwest 
anta, length at top 0.165 m., at bottom 0.195 m., depth 0.12 m., width 0.02 m.; in the capital of the second column 


from the west, length at top 0.12 m., at bottom 0.14 m., depth 0.10 m., width 0.018 m. 
3 Cf. Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, p. 100. 


SETTING 
STONES 


190 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In the construction of the walls, work on each course seems to have begun at the antae, 
that is, the angle blocks were not the last stones laid, though in at least one case, course 7 
of the south wall, the last stone laid was next to the southwest angle block (PLATE XII). It 
was therefore necessary to drop the last stone into its place by the help of tongs, or some similar 
appliance, for which special cuttings (Tig. 116) were made in the top of the stone.’ _In some 
cases the tong holes are no longer visible, but it is possible to determine the last stone laid 
by the absence of dowels at either end. Such stones (marked 
LS L) are still in their original places in courses 6 and 7 of 
the south wall (PuarE XII). In one case these holes are 
found on the top of a stone having also in the bottom a 
dowel cutting, which was evidently made in forgetfulness of 
the fact that the stone was to be the last of its course. In 
the plates of the interior of the temple, the last stone laid 
in each course has been marked LS L, when its position 
could be determined. 

The stones of the Erechtheum also furnish many ex- 
amples of cuttings intended to aid in setting accurately the 
individual blocks. These cuttings are of two kinds. The 
first is found on the upper surface of a course, and was used 
in prying the stones of the course above into place. The 
other is in the stone to be placed, for such shifting as may 
be necessary in the final adjustment. Ficurn 116. SECTION AND PLAN OF 

The pry holes? are usually about 0.06 m. long by 0.02 m. “457 Bice eee ee era 


ING USE OF TONGS FOR DROPPING 


wide by 0.015 m. deep, and are cut at right angles to the di- BLOCK INTO PLACE AND ALSO DOWELS 
IN BLOCKS ALREADY LAID 


rection of movement of the block to be adjusted, the cutting 
tool being the pointed chisel. In connection with the dowel hole, which is generally found 
near them (Figs. 11, 31), they show the direction in which the course above was laid, and 
also the approximate position of its vertical joints. On the inside of the south wall in the top 
of the second orthostate west of the south door, and respectively about 1.38 m. and 1.47 m. 
from its west end (PLaTE XII) are two Greek cuttings, 0.008 m. deep and now from 0.06 m. 
to 0.08 m. long. They resemble pry holes, but can hardly have served as such, for they are 
too far from a vertical joint in the course above, and too near (originally 0.05 m. at most) 
the face of the orthostate. Their purpose is still unexplained. Another curious problem, for 
which no satisfactory solution has been suggested, is furnished by the block east of the 
centre in the pediment of the North Portico (Pharr VIII, 4), where there are two dowel 

' Similar cuttings for hoisting the last stone of a course are found in the Parthenon and in the Propylaea. 

* Both pry-holes and shift-holes were recognized early in the nineteenth century by Haller von Hallerstein, as is 


proved by a careful drawing showing their use (MSS, Strasbourg, Box III, Vol. 8, p. 74). The explanation of pry-holes 


ee ae published by Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., VI, 1881, p. 385; see also J. T. Clarke, Assos, 1882-1883, I, p. 65, and 
ods : 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 191 


cuttings and six pry holes, all apparently connected with the setting of the raking cornice; 
it must be remembered, however, that this part of the building was repaired in Roman times. 

Shift holes, which are intended for the insertion of the shifting bar, are of two kinds: — 
(1) cuttings in the bottom of the stone at the same end as the dowel; and (2) cuttings in 
the opposite end of the stone close to the top, with a cutting also in the adjoining block on 
the other side of the joint to give room to work the bar (Fig. 117). There may, therefore, 
be three shift holes in a stone, — two for itself and one for its neighbor. These cuttings 


A add 
SNE OT iN aad ay he Cad dace a es ade Se 
qeeng cegeveeed 20 ee me en ee 


Figure 117. ARCHITRAVE OF EAST PORTICO, SHOWING USE OF SHIFT HOLES: ISOMETRIC. BELOW: 
DETAILS OF LOWER (A) AND UPPER (B) SHIFT HOLES 


are not to be confused with tong holes, for they are found only at one end of a stone and, 
in the case of the second group, are too near the top to support the weight of the stone. In 
rare cases shift holes are found at the bottom of both ends of a block, while there is a 
dowel cutting at only one end. The simplest explanation seems to be that the hole at the 
other end from the dowel was cut by mistake.! The shift holes seem to have been used 

1 Shift holes were identified by Clarke at Assos in the bottoms of the blocks of the epistyle and in the coffered 
beams of the ceiling of the temple. On the other hand he considered the cuttings near the tops of the stones as intended 


for tongs and their release, a view which seems untenable for the reasons mentioned in the text; see Assos, 1882-1883, 
I, pp. 86, 92, 125, and 63; figs. 13, 6. 


SECURING 
STONES 


192 THE ERECHTHEUM 


only for final adjustment, the one at A, Figure 117, for both lateral and forward move- 
ment, the one at B for lateral movement only. From what has been said it is clear that 
the cuttings at the top of a stone can be used to determine the direction in which a course 
was laid, when the dowels are hidden or lacking. 

Shift holes are found in almost all ordinary wall blocks. They have also been noted in 
the following places: — At the East Portico, in the moulded base of the wall. In the West 
Facade, on the inside of the wall in the course below the orthostates; under the jambs of 
the Roman windows; in the architrave blocks used in the Roman reconstruction, which are 
thus shown to have been laid (in Greek times if the cuttings are Greek) from north to south. 
In the North Portico, in the south ends and on the bottoms of the beams (Fig. 32); in the 
horizontal cornice blocks under the pediment, where there are shift holes in the bottoms of 
the west ends; in a fragment of the raking cornice, probably from the west side of the pedi- 
ment, at both ends; in the coffers of the ceiling. In the Porch of the Maidens, in the bottoms 
of the steps; in the blocks of the roof, which are so large and heavy that, in shifting the second 
block from the west, the bar at the northeast end somewhat crushed the stone below (PLATE 
XXVII, 10). In the east block the shift hole is cut a little above the bottom, in order to 
avoid the rabbet in the wall and give the crowbar free play. 

A third class of cuttings in the stones of the Erechtheum is connected with the methods 
employed for securing them in place, stones in different courses being held together by 
dowels, those in the same course by clamps. 

The ordinary Greek dowel of the Erechtheum is a plate of wrought iron measuring on 
the average 0.108 m. X 0.047 m. X 0.008 m. (Fig. 118 a), set in a cutting about 0.12 m. X 
0.06 m. X 0.015 m. The upper half of the cutting is a slot in the end of the upper stone, 
the lower a slot in the stone of the bed (Figs. 116, 1188). The dowel was somewhat smaller 
than its cutting, and in order that the dowel might fit snugly molten lead was run about it. 
Since, however, each dowel could be leaded as the stone was laid, there was no need of pour 
channels. As the dowels were intended to prevent lateral motion the slots were regularly 
parallel to the face of the course. Normally each wall block was secured by two dowels 
(PuateE XXVIII); only one case has been noted where a single dowel on the axis of the 
wall was used. 

In certain parts of the building the cuttings for dowels are much smaller than the normal 
size. Thus in the ‘‘niche”’ at the southwest corner, the holes for the dowels which held 
the sheathing behind the roof of the Porch of the Maidens are 0.032 m. long, 0.012 m. 
wide, and 0.02 m. deep; and the cuttings for securing the lengths of inserted moulding 
are, in the epistyle of the East Portico, 0.04 m. long, 0.01 m. wide, and 0.02 m. deep; on 
the outside of the epistyle of the North Portico, 0.05 m. long, 0.01 m. wide, and 0.04 m. 
deep;’ and on the inside of the epistyle of the Porch of the Maidens 0.035 m. long, 0.012 m. 


1 The position of this block in the reconstructed walls is not known. When examined, it was on the ground. 
? A dowel from the inside of the epistyle is 0.045 m. long, 0.004 m. wide and 0.033 m. high. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 193 


wide, and 0.045 m. deep. In all these cases the depth is, of course, only one-half that of 
the complete cutting when both upper and lower stones were in place. 

The exigencies of construction sometimes prevented the ordinary methods of leading 
and made necessary a powr channel. On the south anta of the West Facade, in the first and 
third courses, ordinary dowels were leaded by sloping pour channels from the north face 


A B 


Figure 119. BLOCK WITH CUTTING FOR DOWEL AND VERTICAL POUR CHANNEL: 
FROM CROWNING MOULDING OF PODIUM, PORCH OF THE MAIDENS 


(PLATE XX, 3 at A, 16). In the Porch of the Maidens the upper moulding of the podium 
was secured in two instances by ordinary dowels leaded through vertical pour channels 
from the top of the stone (PLatme X XVII, 6; Fig. 119). This is a natural method of pro- 
cedure in the case of the last stones laid or of angle stones. In the same course, at the west 
end of the south podium, is found what may perhaps be called a “‘horizontal dowel,” leaded 
also from above (PLatE X XVII, 5). The function of such a dowel is to keep the tops of the 


194. THE ERECHTHEUM 


two adjacent stones in line with each other, and the precaution was necessary here to pre- 
vent the weight of the southwest Maiden from causing an irregularity in the upper course 
of the podium. For securing the figures of the frieze to the Eleusinian stone notched dowels 
of a peculiar shape (Fig. 120) were used. 

At points where there was a possibility of movement in two directions, as for example 
at the corners of the buildings, a T-dowel was employed (Figs. 121, 128).? Such dowels 
are found at the angles of the stylobate and steps of the East Portico, and in the steps of 
the North Portico and of the Porch of the Maidens (Phates XVI, XXII, XXVIII). At 
the northeast corner of the East Portico a dowel in the stylobate was set a little back from 
the south edge of the middle step, in order to avoid a joint in the poros foundation. It was 
leaded through a slot at the end of the block before the stone to the south was laid (Fig. 
122).2 At the south end of the east wall the block ranging with the stylobate was secured 
to the poros block below, in course 15. by a large T-dowel (PLATE II). No such dowel can 
be seen at the corresponding point in the north end of this course, but about 0.25 m. nearer 
the corner is an ordinary dowel, running north and south. In both antae of the east end 
T-dowels have been found wherever an examination was possible (Figs. 17, 21, 22). Those 
in the stylobate and the base moulding were larger than those used in the orthostates and 
the courses above.? Traces in the top of the frieze (PLATE X XI, 2; Fig. 12) show that the 
cornice block at the southeast corner was secured both on the north and west by T-dowels 
in cuttings 0.11 m. and 0.10 m. long in the arms, 0.015 m. wide, and 0.06 m. deep. In the 
pediment of the North Portico cuttings at the east end show that T-dowels, leaded from the 
rear apparently, secured the tympanum, its backing, and the raking cornice to the horizontal 
cornice, and a similar dowel held a block of the raking cornice to the tympanum stone east 
of the centre (PLate VIII, 4). At the southwest angle of the portico the T-dowel which 
secured the epistyle to the epicranitis was removed in 1904 and found to be 0.063 m. and 
0.081 m. long in the arms, 0.01 m. wide, and 0.09 m. deep (Fig. 121). The jambs of the 
North Door are also held at the bottom by T-dowels, set in cuttings 0.155 m. and 0.175 m. 
long in the arms, 0.025 m. wide, and 0.11 m. deep below the joint and 0.09 m. above (PLATE 
XXV, 6,7). In the Porch of the Maidens the western roof stone is held at both north and 
south ends by T-dowels (PLate XXVII, 9,10). On the east side of the south door the long 


* See Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, p. 105, fig. 61, and G. P. Stevens, A. J. A., X, 1906, 
p. 51, where this type of dowel is correctly described for the first time. Inwood (ed. min., p. 6, and pl. XIV) ob- 
a a unusual type of dowel at the southeast corner of the main building, but erroneously described it as a 
cross (-+). 

? This dowel is now hidden. Another T-dowel in the same block is visible in the fracture at the southeast corner 
(PLATE II). It is now packed in cement. 

* An easily seen example is the cutting for the dowel joining the stylobate to the moulded base at the southeast 
corner of the Kast Portico, which is 0.15 m. and 0.21 m. long in the arms, and 0.025 m. wide (width of the metal 
0.02 m.); the depth is unknown, as the metal is still in place. In PLatE XVI the cutting is represented as extending 
0.08 m. both above and below the joint, on the evidence of similar cuttings elsewhere in the building. The cutting in the 
top of the moulding is 0.16 m. and 0.16 m. long in the arms, 0.02 m. wide, and 0.066 m. deep; the latter being one-half 
the height of the dowel. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 195 


block in course 14 was secured both above and below by T-dowels; and in course 12, at the 
east end of the block which abuts on the lintel, an unused cutting for a T-dowel is visible 
on the inside of the wall (PLatE XII). In the block from the pavement of the Prostomiaion 
(Fig. 104) two ordinary dowels at right angles serve the same purpose as a T-dowel. 


jOOF 


Figure 120. DOWEL FOR SE- 
CURING FIGURES OF FRIEZE, 
FROM EAST PORTICO 


—__—_ 


Ke 
VU GF 
rt my ; co 


Figure 122. PLAN AND SECTION 

OF T-DOWEL IN STYLOBATE AT 

NORTH CORNER OF EAST POR- 
TICO, NOW COVERED 


Figure 121. A T-DOWEL 


y 


+Or 
,012 


Figure 123. PIN-DOWEL FROM 
CAPITAL, PORCH OF THE 
MAIDENS 


In the Porch of the Maidens wrought iron pins were used in some cases where the con- 
struction excluded the ordinary forms of dowel.! Thus round pins (Fig. 123) secure the 
plinths on which the Maidens stand to the podium (PLatr XXVI, left; XXVIII), one group 
of capitals (p. 112) to their abaci (PLares XXVI, XXVIII), and the thin slabs at the north- 


1 The use of bronze and iron pins for attaching inserted pieces and repairs is discussed below, p. 214. 


196 THE ERECHTHEUM 


west corner to the roof (p. 114). Small square pins bind a foot of the northwest Maiden to 
its plinth (PLarz XXVII, 8). All these pins are set in cement.’ 

Rectangular cuttings for the usual wooden empolia are found, as was to be expected, in 
the drums of the columns of the Erechtheum. They also appear in the stylobate under the 
northeast corner column of the East Portico (PLaTms II, XVIII, 2), in the bases of the 
half-columns at the west (PLATE XIX; Fig. 41), in the top of the plinths beneath the feet 
of the Maidens, and in the capital of the northeast Maiden, now placed on the statue west 
of the southeast corner (PLATE XXVI, 5), though not in the other four capitals which are 
preserved (PLatEs X XVI, 3, XXVII, 8, XXVIII).? The wooden empolia from the columns 
of the North Portico (Figs. 124, 125) are of cedar with sides carefully smoothed.’ The polos 
which fitted in the hole was cut from the centre of a small tree or branch, since the pith is 
in the centre of the polos. When the capital of the southern column of the East Facade was 
readjusted in 1907, the upper part of the empolion was found well-preserved in the capital 
(Fig. 126), though the lower part and the pin had decayed away. The marks in the interior 
show plainly the method employed in cutting the central hole. Four holes were bored with 
an augur similar to those used to-day, and the hole was then shaped by a gouge, pushed 
straight down and leaving traces on both the bottom and sides. It would seem that the 
carpenter did not have an augur sufficiently large to make the hole by a single boring. 

In the Roman repairs on the Erechtheum a different form of dowel was used, consist- 
ing of a square pin of iron set a little distance from the edge of the block and leaded by a 
pour channel, usually cut in the surface of the bed.* Indeed the presence of these dowel 
cuttings is a good criterion of the parts affected by the repairs, indicating both what was 
entirely new, and what was re-used, since in the latter case both forms of dowel hole are 
found. ‘The repairers, however, used the old type of dowel in the top of the frieze at 
the west end (PLarE XX, 10), perhaps to correspond with Greek cuttings in the cornice 
blocks, although it should be added that the cornice of the repairers often shows the use of 
dowels of the later type. 

The Greek clamps used in the Erechtheum are all of wrought iron. Those that secure 
adjoining blocks of the same course are of the double-'T type (4) common in Athens in 
the fifth century B.c. (Figs. 127, 128). In the walls there are usually two at each end of a 
block, but in one case, where there was a single dowel below (p. 192), a single clamp on the 
axis of the block was used above. 

The ordinary cutting is about 0.10 m. wide at the crossbar, 0.015 m. thick, 0.045 m. 
deep, and 0.31 m. long over all, or 0.155 m. in each stone; the clamp itself is of course 


1 For an analysis of this cement, see Note A at the end of this chapter. 

2 Empolia in these four capitals, which have a thin abacus (p. 112), would have weakened the abacus too much 
and might also have interfered with the dowelling of the architrave, as the depth of a dowel cutting from above pits 
the depth of an empolion cutting from below would be greater than the thickness of the abacus. 

* For the results of an examination of the fragments of the wood, see Note B at the end of this chapter 

* The free end of the channel indicates closely the position of a vertical joint in the course above. 


ANITA 


wai: MUM 


+ O72 a 


se 
. 
DANN 


MT 


IW" e 


Figure 126. ABOVE: PLAN AND SECTION OF 


< gosx UPPER PART OF EMPOLION FROM BED OF 
SOUTH CAPITAL OF EAST PORTICO. BELOW: 
Fieure 125. EMPOLION FROM SOUTHWEST PLAN AND SECTION OF AUGUR HOLE 
COLUMN OF NORTH PORTICO IN THIS EMPOLION 


Ficure 127. ORDINARY GREEK CLAMP: ISOMETRIC 


[ 197 ] 


198 THE ERECHTHEUM 


somewhat smaller. There are, however, some instances of very much larger clamps. Thus 
in the Porch of the Maidens the cuttings for those joining the stones in the podium and in 
the roof are from 0.36 m. to 0.40 m. long; the architrave in the North Portico over the small 
door contains one cutting 0.21 m. long, 0.16 m. wide at the crossbar, and 0.172 m. deep, and 
another 0.23 m. long, 0.14 m. wide at the crossbar, and 0.072 m. deep; and in the marble 
pavement at the foot of the north wall (PLATE I) the westernmost preserved slab is held at 
its southwest corner to the poros foundation of the north wall ' by a clamp running east and 
west, the visible arm of which, in the poros block, is 0.29 m. long; its extension into the 
marble block is covered. On the other hand much smaller clamps are used to hold the strips 


Figure 128. NORTH PORTICO: TOP OF PIER AT SOUTHWEST CORNER, SHOWING A 
T-DOWEL AND CUTTINGS FOR CLAMPS AND A LEWIS 


of inserted moulding; those in the East Portico being 0.11 m. long, 0.05 m. wide at the cross- 
bar, 0.01 m. thick, and 0.015 m. deep (PLate XVII); in the North Portico 0.13 m. long, 
0.07 m. wide, 0.013 m. thick, and 0.035 m. deep (Fig. 138); and in the Porch of the Maidens 
0.115 m. long, 0.065 m. wide, 0.007 m. thick, and 0.02 m. deep (Phare XXVI, 1, 2, 4).? 
The traces of clamps, which are at times visible on the bottoms of stones from the course 
above (Fig. 60), are often helpful in replacing these blocks correctly. 

In addition to the normal type special varieties of clamps are also found. As already 
noted in the preceding chapter, two forms are used to secure the jambs of the North 
Door to the wall (Fig. 64), and in the doorway leading from the Porch of the Maidens 
straight clamps, as shown by the cuttings, held the threshold and probably the block below 
to the orthostate on the east. In the North Portico, between the beams and interbeams 
and also between the beams and coffers, straight bars of iron were dropped into slots to 


1 The missing slab of the pavement, west of the preserved block, did not extend as far south as its neighbor, so 
that the poros foundation of the wall here projects about 0.14 m. north of the southwest corner of the marble slab. 

? The clamps used in the remains of earlier constructions in the Pandroseum (p. 125) have somewhat different 
dimensions from those found in the Erechtheum, being 0.25 m. long, 0.075 m. wide at the crossbar, and 0.05 m. deep. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 199 


perform half the function of clamps by preventing lateral movement (PLaTe VIII, 4; 
Fig. 56). Another special form, having at one end only half of the crossbar, is visible on the 
inside of the south wall at the east end, where it connects the 
fourth block from the southeast angle, in course 13, with the 
centre of the orthostate (PLATE XII; Fig. 31). The same form 
was probably used throughout this course and in other similar 
places. In the Greek construction clamps do not seem to be 
used to strengthen a defective stone, as they sometimes are in 
the Propylaea, though apparently never in the Parthenon; but 
on the Roman architrave of the West Facade, over the second 
intercolumniation from the south, a defective corner was at- 
tached both by pins and 4 clamps (Fig. 48). 
poe ea oana apes In the Roman repairs the wrought iron hook clamp (—==) is 
GAGED coLuMNS or west regularly used, and the appearance of this type is good evidence 
FACADE TO BLOCKS OF INTER- of later work. This clamp was even used to secure the stone 
COLUMNAR WALL 
beneath the sill of the western windows to the engaged columns, 
although it was necessary to cut a notch in the column to receive it (Fig. 129). A special 
form, hooked at only one end (PLatTE XX, 13), was used at the top of the jambs of these 
windows. 
Molten lead was run about both Greek and Roman clamps, as well as dowels, and in 
certain cases packed, that there might be no play in the joint. 


MMMM 


lV. FrInisHing OPERATIONS 


In accordance with the common Greek practice the visible surfaces of the ordinary 
blocks used in the Erechtheum were not given their final dressing until the wall of which 
they formed a part, or a definite section thereof, was otherwise completed. This is clear 
from the report of the commissioners of 409 B.c., where the south wall is said to be un- 
smoothed (dxard£eoros) except within the Porch of the Maidens.! Apart from this statement, 
however, the building itself furnishes ample evidence of the condition of the stones when 
laid, since in many cases the finishing operations were not carried out. Such unfinished sur- 
faces are usually found in those parts which were concealed from view, and their evi- 
dential value in the reconstruction has been frequently indicated; as, for example, the testi- 
mony borne by the condition of the south end of the west wall to the presence of an abutting 
structure, probably the Cecropium (p. 130). In the interior of the building east of the 
eastern cross-wall (PLate XII; Fig. 30) most of the marble blocks in the south wall below 
course 13 have projecting bosses, and several have a drafted edge, such as was often cut on 
stones to show the plane of the finished surface. In the same portion of the north wall 


1 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, Il. 56-59, and Commentary, p. 309. 


UNFIN- 
ISHED 
SURFACES 


200 THE ERECHTHEUM 


(PLatE XI) are also stones with bosses, while three orthostates and four blocks in the wall 
show a carefully drafted edge. In both walls these stones were, of course, below the level of 
the floor in the East Cella (p. 150). 

Unfinished surfaces, however, are by no means confined to the concealed parts of the 
Erechtheum. Bosses, or their traces, have been left in the North Portico on the upper part 
of the left jamb of the large door (PLates XXV, XXXV, 3) and on the base of the wall 
close to the east anta (PLarr VII; Fig. 67); on the south anta of the West Fagade in 
course 5 of the west face (PLATE IV), courses 2, 3, and 9 of the north face (PLaTE XII), and 
course 4 of the east face (PLATE X); and in the interior in courses 9 and 10 of the south wall 
(PLate XII) and courses 10 and 14 of the north (PLaTE XI). It is probable that some of 
these bosses were originally hidden, but have been exposed by the injuries to the temple. 

Other evidence that the last touches were never given is furnished by the presence of 
small bevelled, or V, joints, designed to protect the edge from splintering ' and to be re- 
moved in the final dressing. These joints are visible in the interior in both north and 
south walls, and their testimony as to the unfinished condition of these walls is confirmed 
by the presence at various points of drafted bands to show the position of the dressed sur- 
face.2. Such a band appears in the north wall east of the jamb of the great door (PLATE X1), 
and perhaps in the south wall near the centre of the stone east of the lintel of the door from 
the Porch of the Maidens (PLatE XIT). Other indications of this kind have been noted in 
the discussion of the interior cross walls (p. 152). 

In the niche, courses 6 and 7 show marks of the toothed chisel and have been left in much 
the condition of the central part of a bed after the ézepyacia. A bit of original surface has 
also been left at the south end of the middle and lowest steps on the west of the North 
Portico, at the point where the drain from the Pandroseum had its exit (PLatss IV, VIII, 2; 
Fig. 73); and on the north side of the building the upper surface of the marble pavement 
below the lowest step has remained unfinished except for a band next the step. 

Apart from these cases where the work was not completed, there are others where 
neglect to allow for the final dressing made it necessary to leave part of the original 
surface in order to secure a close joint with an abutting stone. Two such cases in the North 
Portico have already been noted (pp. 86, 70),— at the junction of the east architrave 
with the adjacent wall (Fig. 54), and of the raking cornice with the architrave of the West 
Facade (PLATE XX, 7).8 

In the Roman west wall the stone now placed north of the capital of the second column 
from the north shows the profile of a capital which here abutted in the original position of 
the stone and prevented working down the surface to the general level. 


1 Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, p. 103. 


® The drafted band on the steps and podium at the east end of the north wall is not of this character and was 
probably intended to remain as decoration. Cf. p. 16, note 4. 


° For similar neglect at the junction of the cross-walls with the inner orthostates see pp. 148, 152. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 201 


The mouldings of the Erechtheum seem to have been treated in a manner similar to the 
blocks of the wall. The profiles were cut on the ground and the ornamental carving finished 
after the stones were in place, except, of course, in those cases where the position of the 
stone precluded further cutting after it was laid. The slight variations which may be seen in 
the epicranitis of the North Portico are probably to be attributed to the employment of dif- 
ferent workmen, and, therefore, do not indicate when or where the final carving was done. 
The occasional presence of reinforcements in ‘‘darts’’ and ‘‘tongues,’’ where these orna- 
ments are divided by a joint, suggests that these delicate mouldings were strengthened even 
before the details were carved, to avoid the danger that they would break when the next 
stone was laid. The reinforcements were of course to be cut away in the final operations, 
but a reinforced tongue has been left in the bed-moulding of the south block of the cornice 
at the joint near the southeast corner of the North Portico. 

The ornamental carving was not everywhere brought to completion, for the following 
cases of unfinished mouldings have been noted. 

In the East Portico the lower torus of the south anta is not completely reeded, except on 
the under side, which, of course, had to be carved before the stone was laid (Fig. 18). On 
the piece from the bottom of a jamb of the south window, the small astragalus has been left 
uncut for 0.018 m. On each of the angle capitals one inside volute was uncarved; the other 
was worked on a separate piece and has been destroyed (Figs. 133, 134, 136). 

In the West Facade, on both antae, in the southern intercolumniation, and on the south- 
ern column, the upper torus of the base moulding has not been reeded. Below the capital of 
the south anta the anthemion on the north face is not even indicated, and a portion of a 
palmette on the west face in uncut.! At the southwest corner, both of the anta and of the 
building, the usual little floral ornament on both the egg-and-dart and leaf-and-tongue has 
been omitted (PLATE XX, 3). 

In the North Portico, on the west side of the base of the east anta, the lower torus is fin- 
ished only on the under surface, and the guilloche on the upper torus is cut at the angle 
with the wall for a mitre, apparently on the supposition that the moulding was to be con- 
tinued along the base of the wall within the portico (p. 109). A boss on the wall near by 
shows that something — probably the altar of the Thyechoiis — concealed these defects or 
prevented their removal. At the junction of the east side of the portico with the north wall, 
the egg-and-dart ornament at the top of the cornice is uncut for 0.045 m., and the mouldings 
of the epicranitis hidden by the cornice are only profiled, the. ornamental carving being 
omitted (PLaTE VII). On the pier at the southwest corner a palmette and its adjacent 
tendrils in the epicranitis are merely blocked out on the south side, while on the east they 
are not even indicated (Fig. 130); on this side also the carving on the bed-moulding is left 
unfinished. In the interior of the portico the bottom leaf on the west jamb of the great door 


1 There was never any carved ornament on the east face of the anta, although the mouldings may have been 
painted (p. 175). 


CARVING OF 
MOULDINGS 


UNCARVED 
MOULDINGS 


202 THE ERECHTHEUM 


is uncut; on the architrave the bead-and-reel is uncarved for 0.10 m. at the southeast 
corner, and both egg-and-dart and bead-and-reel for 0.05 m. at the west end of the south 
wall, and also in the northeast corner on the north block. 

In the Porch of the Maidens the coping of the podium is profiled but uncarved in the in- 
terior of the porch (Fig. 70), and also on the south side of the opening. On the west side 
of the exterior the northern block is profiled throughout its entire length and the abutting 
block from the wall of the Cecropium (Fig. 83) is cut to fit this profile (Fig. 82 at B). The 


Fraurer 130. NORTH PORTICO: CAPITAL OF PIER AT SOUTHWEST CORNER, SOUTH AND EAST FACES, 
SHOWING UNFINISHED ANTHEMION 


fully carved mouldings of the southern block cease at the junction with the wall, where the 
surface is cut back obliquely and given a dressing very similar to an anathyrosis; there is a 
corresponding oblique cutting in the abutting block (Fig. 82 at A). At the exterior south- 
west corner of the porch the mouldings of the tori of the podium were apparently carved 
only on the under side.! The base moulding in the interior, as far as it is preserved. is un- 
carved, except for a fragment at the north corner of the southern block on the west side 


1 On the upper torus two flutes are carved; on the lower torus one reed and the channel on each side of it. On the 
south side of the corner both mouldings are broken away; on the west side the mouldings are badly damaged, but the 
unfinished condition of the carving can be detected. Since on the inside of the western block the small bit of moulding 
which has remained undamaged is fluted (Fig. 70), it is possible that it was originally intended to place the present inner 
face on the outside, unless, indeed, the plan of carving the inner mouldmgs was abandoned after this block was set. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 203 


(Fig. 70). On the east side of the east anta the torus is fluted only underneath, although it 
is completely carved on the adjacent wall. At the northwest and northeast corners of the 
entablature the dentils have not been completely finished. At the northwest corner the 
space north of the last dentil has been cut back only to about one-half the usual depth 
(Fig. 81); at the northeast corner no space at all has been cut, thus leaving a dentil of nearly 
double the normal width. The discs on the architrave are left plain, although they were to 
have been carved into rosettes.! On the cornice at the northwest corner both the bed- 
moulding and the crowning moulding are left uncarved for a short distance above the last 
dentil (Fig. 81). At the northeast corner both the astragalus and the leaf-and-tongue are 
uncarved for about half the width of the broad dentil; the crowning moulding is missing. 

The floral ornament (dv6éuov), which plays so important a part in the decoration of the 
Erechtheum, while preserving a general uniformity in the alternation of a palmette and a 
conventionalized flower, yet displays considerable variety in the details, especially in the 
form given to the flower, and in the character and number of the tendrils which serve to 
connect the principal members or to fill the spaces between them. The nine forms which 
may thus be distinguished are most conveniently grouped according to their position on 
the building. As all are shown fully in the illustrations a detailed description seems su- 
perfluous. 


1. The epicranitis on the north, east, south, and west walls of the main building (PLATES 
XVIII, XX, 3, XX XVII, 1), and on the bit of wall between the projecting faces on 
the west side of the pier at the southwest corner of the North Portico (PLatr XXIII). 
This form was also used on both the south and the west faces of the Roman capital 
of the northwest anta of the main building (PLATE XX, 2, 8). 

2. The east face of both east antae and the west face of the southwest anta (PLATES 
MEL NN, 35. SV 1; 3). 

2,a. The band below the capitals of the east columns is the same in pattern, but smaller 
(PLatEs XVI, XXXVI, 2; Fig. 10). 

3. The north face of the east anta of the North Portico, and the north and south faces 
of the pier at the southwest corner (PLATE XXIII; Figs. 130, 131, 132). 

4, The epicranitis on the wall in the North Portico, with slight variations in the differ- 
ent blocks (PLATES XXIII, XX XVII, 2); the band on the projecting faces on the 
west side of the pier at the southwest corner and on its east face within the portico 
(PLatE XXIII); and the east and west faces of the east anta of the North Portico 
(Puate XXIII; Fig. 131). 

4,a. The band below the capitals of the columns of the North Portico is the same in 
pattern but not so high as that of the epicranitis (PLATES XXII, XXIII, XXXVI, 


4, 6). 


1 Cf. Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 90, and Commentary, p. 314. 


VARIETIES 
OF ANTHE- 
MION 


204 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Figure 131. NORTH PORTICO: CAPITAL OF EAST ANTA AND ADJOINING EPICRANITIS, FROM NORTHWEST 


5. The south face of the south anta and the north face of the north anta of the East 
Portico (PLatTes XVIII, XXIX, 2, XXXVI, 5). 
6. The capitals of the antae of the Porch of the Maidens (PLarms XXVI, XXXVI, 1). 
7. The band (Roman) below the capital on the second column from the north on the 
West Fagade (PLate XIX). 
8. The band (Roman) on the third column from the north on the West Facade (PLATE 
XX Os 
9. The palmette decoration on the cyma of the lintel of the North Door (PLATE XXV), 
which, although Roman, is very probably a poor copy of the Greek original (p. 102). 
It will be observed that the simplest form is employed on the epicranitis; somewhat 
greater richness is given to the anthemion on the antae and the columns of the main build- 
ing, chiefly by means of an astragalus below; while the North Portico, where vertical tendrils 
are added, displays in this, as in other respects, the most elaborate decoration. The varia- 
tions, however, are not wholly due to the prominence of the position on the building. Con- 
siderations of space also influenced the carver. A palmette is placed at every corner with 


1 The uncarved band on the first column from the north is modern; the band on the fourth is damaged beyond 
recognition. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 205 


Figure 132. NORTH PORTICO: CAPITAL OF WEST ANTA, NORTH AND EAST FACES, FROM NORTHEAST 


its axis on the angle (PLatm XXXVI, 3, 5), and in the epicranitis of the main building the 
ornament is so spaced that the vertical joint between the blocks coincides with the axis of 
apalmette. On the wall of the North Portico the joints fall alternately on the axis of a pal- 
mette and of a flower (PLATE XX XVII, 2), except the one next to the west pier, which cuts 
through a tendril (Puats VII; Fig. 132); this block, however, is 1.415 m. long, while the 
others are about 1.32 m. 

So also the difference in width of the faces of the antae has influenced the form 
given to the decoration. ‘Thus in the anta and pier of the North Portico, the north face 
has a palmette at each corner and one on the axis; the side faces have palmettes only at 
the corners (Fig. 131). As, however, the distance from axis to axis of the palmettes is 
greater on the principal face than on the sides (PLATE X XIII), there are two tendrils, one 
large and one small, between each palmette and the flower next it, while on the sides, as 
on the wall of the portico, there is only one large tendril, and on the bit of wall on the west 
side of the west pier there are no tendrils. 

An examination of the anthemion on the wall of the North Portico, which has never been 
displaced, shows that it varies slightly in details on the different blocks, though consistent 
within each block. This may imply that the blocks were cut by different workmen. At 


FLUTING OF 
COLUMNS 


INSERTED 
PIECES 


206 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the same time the exact correspondence of the ornamentation on adjacent blocks at the 
vertical joints, even where the joint cut the pattern irregularly, as was the case next to the 
west pier, shows that the work was not finished on the ground but after the blocks were in 
place. 

A further distinction between the anthemion upon the walls and that on the antae and 
columns is in the plane of the relief. On the antae and columns the anthemion projects 
beyond the face below, from which it is separated by an astragalus, or, as on the columns 
of the North Portico, by a projecting flat band. On the other hand, on the wall the astrag- 
alus is omitted and the background of the relief sunk, so that the greatest projection of 
the anthemion is in the plane of the surface of the wall. 

The care in concealing joints, which appears in the epicranitis, is found also in other 
parts of the building. Thus in the coffers of the North Portico and of the Porch of the 
Maidens, a bead-and-reel ornament is found next to the joint, which makes the joint much 
less conspicuous from below (PLates XXIII, XXVI). The general treatment of the egg- 
and-dart and leaf-and-tongue mouldings at the angles is shown in PLarE XXII, A and D: 
these motives are slightly varied throughout the building and skilfully adapted to unusual 
positions (PLATES XXIII, B, c, XXXVI, 1, 3, 5, XX XVII, 8; Figs. 130, 131, 132). 

The inscriptions show that in the Erechtheum, as in other Greek buildings, the flutes in 
the columns were cut after the drums were in place. This practice was, in all probability, 
also followed by the repairers, for the Roman columns at the west end are unfluted at 
the points where they are covered by the sills of the windows (p. 67). In general the flutes 
are deeper at the base than at the top. In the east and west columns the fillet between the 
flutes has the same width throughout (PLares XVI, XIX), but in the North Portico it is 
slightly broader at the bottom (PLats XXII). 

In 1908, during the reconstruction of the Porch of the Maidens, the plinth of the rear 
Maiden on the west side was exposed, and was found to show the outline of the sandal of 
the left foot of the statue, plainly traced by the marks of the chisel with which the sandal 
had been finished. As the plinth is a separate stone, it is clear that this cutting must have 
been done after the statue was in place. Probably the sandal was found to need some alter- 
ation, for the possibility that these figures were treated like columns is precluded by the 
absence of any other traces of such finishing operations and also by the accuracy with which 
the cutting to relieve pressure follows the outline of the drapery, showing that this was com- 
plete before the figures were set up. At least there is positive proof that the drapery was 
finished for a certain distance from the bottom before the Maidens were put in place, and 
it may be considered certain that the Maidens were completely finished at the same time. 

In carving the mouldings and in the other finishing operations it naturally became 
necessary to remedy visible defects in the stone or mistakes by the workmen. The method 


* See Ch. IV, Inscriptions XIV, col. 1, Il. 1-14; XV, Il. 1-4; XVII, col. 1, Il. 34-87, col. 1, ll. 46-69, and Commen- 
tary, pp. 411 ff. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 207 


of correction commonly adopted was to cut away the damaged part and insert a new piece. 
These inserted pieces vary from strips of considerable length! to such minute details as 
part of the sheath of an egg or a single reel. Indeed, repairs are especially frequent in the 
astragalus, where, on account of the extreme delicacy of the reels, the presence of even a 
small vein of mica might seriously handicap 
the carving. Naturally most of the inser- 
tions are found in the mouldings, but there 
are also a few cases where ordinary blocks 
have been repaired in the same way. 

The following list contains the instances 
of inserted or added pieces which were noted 
during the study of the building. 


East Portico: — The lowest step.— A small 
piece of marble (visible dimensions 0.065 m. 
by 0.04m.) at the northwest corner of the 
southeast block. The injury was repaired 
before the middle step was laid, for the in- 
serted piece extends beneath this step. 

The capitals of the corner columns. — Part of 
the volutes at the exterior and interior 
angles, and the ornament at the top of the 
interior angle. On the southern column 
(Fig. 133) 2 the pieces on the exterior were 
attached to the south face, which is now 
badly damaged, so that there is no trace 
of the method by which the volutes were 
fastened, and the exact extent of the ap- 
plied portion is uncertain. There is a strong 
probability, however, that the extent here 
was similar to that of the north volutes of 
the northeast column. In the inner angle 


Mi 


TOW ORONO 


SYN 


~ 
Fr) 
4 
t ) 


the volute was secured in a socket and also Figure 133. EAST PORTICO: CAPITAL OF SOUTH 
fastened by a metal pin set in cement. On COLUMN: PLAN FROM BELOW AND ELEVATION 
the northern capital (in the British Mu- OF WEST FACE, SHOWING INSERTED PIECES AND 


: UNCARVED VOLUTE 
seum) the entire north face, except the 


egg-and-dart moulding at the top and the guilloche at the bottom, was applied (Fig. 1385). The 
central portion is still in place though irregularly broken on each side. On either side of this 
central portion are remains of small holes with traces of iron pins, two above and two below. 
Those above are each 0.085 m. and those below 0.12 m. from the ends of the smooth surface 
(Fig. 1384). The interior angle (Fig. 136) resembles that of the southern column. A fragment of 


1 Of course it is not to be assumed that the larger pieces were always inserted to remedy defects. In the archi- 
traves, for example, economy of material and also of labor may well have been the chief reason for the use of at- 
tached mouldings, for a narrower block could be used in such cases with less waste of material. 

2 In Figure 133 the hatching represents the applied pieces, consisting of the egg-and-dart ornament at the inner 
angle and of portions of the volutes. 


208 THE ERECHTHEUM 


an applied volute has been preserved, but owing to the poor condition of both capitals it is un- 
certain to which it belonged. 
The southern capital. — Part of the sheath of an egg inserted over one of the palmettes on the south 
side; a strip 0.18 m. long of the lower bead-and-reel at the necking, inserted and held by cement. 
The architrave. —The moulding on the inner face of three blocks, — viz., in the centre, on the 
north of the centre, and across the south end (PLATES XVI, XVII, XVIII). The cuttings for 
the dowels and clamps by which the added strips were secured still exist (Fig. 11). On the 


aa — ARCHITRAVE — a | 
! 
{ = 
Mm i 
2 . 
1% vf I 
' “Se a a kc BO ch : | 
; Pale 
t AT i 
dO Deseret EO eta e CAINE IT Se j 
Zé ? eet] . Yao rte eh cae a Caries weteO 
é Dicboal es tane Ua |S EAS otras kh, aaa eae 
wl if epee Bee aan Bee ee 
= : oe an ct pater : 
<L x eh lea a. (ie Oe: 
of oe US Se eee = ; 
5 Hits pve) ehsle bles). a7 Realy ce OMe eeey: 
U 4, Baa ec Seurirtee eM Rea UE SIC AF Hx 
e a Fee ere they MRE re hoe eo 
ra aes RCS eegeench peer ore ee acl tis) Mirth: 
ited =, Sena ree ox eft a PONS of Joris cy . 
ep eens eS ed: Iisa Sunline Lace ce Ruston eS 
eee 
SA 
Wee x) 
CM pustpg ; 


Ficure 134. EAST PORTICO: PLAN OF TOP OF CAPITAL 
OF NORTH COLUMN (BRITISH MUSEUM) 


central stone two attached pieces were together equal to the length of the architrave and were 
laid from south to north (PLaTE XVII; Fig. 11). 

The long architrave block across the south end. — Above the west end of the anta, a bit of the upper 
moulding over the leaf-and-tongue, secured by dovetailing, and a pair of reels below; farther 
east, over the span, three reels; under the cornice, three more reels. 

The capital of the south anta. — On the south side, the bottom and east side of the sheath of the 
first egg west of the anta proper; beneath this egg, one reel; beneath the fourth egg from the west 
end of the block, another reel. 

The capital of the north anta (in the British Museum). — The astragalus at the northeast corner, 
including one reel on the east and six on the north side (PLATE XXXVI, 3, 5). 

South window. — In the larger fragment of the lintel, a bit of moulding at the corner (Fig. 25). 

West Fagape: — South anta. — An irregular piece, 0.165 m. long and 0.009-0.014 m. high, in the 
top of the tenth course (PLATE IV). ; 
SoutH Wat: — A bit in the fillet above the torus in the first long block from the east end of the 
base moulding, about 0.21 m. east of the second joint in the orthostate. 
At the southwest corner, in course 3, a small piece in both top and bottom of the block 
(Piates VI, VII); the one at the bottom, about 0.20 m. from the corner, has fallen out, but the 
other, about 0.75 m. from the corner, is still in place. 


ES OF CAPITAL OF NORTH COLUMN (BRITISH MUSEUM) 


[ 209 ] 


Figure 136. EAST PORTICO: SOUTH AND WEST FA 


210 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Nortu Wau: — In the moulding of the base, on the third block from the east, about 0.90 m. from 
the east joint, a part of the second fillet from the bottom on the upper torus. 
In course 3, near the frieze of the North Portico, a piece 0.06 m. high, 0.102 m. deep, and 
0.177 m. long (PLATE V; Fig. 54). 


Ivrrrior: — A piece in the bottom of the third orthostate east of the North Door (PLars XI). 
In course 6 of the niche in the southwest corner, a small bit of marble to fill the gap between 
two stones, caused by cutting back the face beyond the width of the anathyrosis (PLate XII; 
Fig. 108). 
EpricraNitis: — Bits of the bead-and-reel here and there on several of the blocks now replaced and 
also on those in the British Museum (Fig. 142 8, c).? 
On one of the blocks in the British Museum, the central portion of a scroll below a palmette, 
and also a dart (Fig. 142 4). 


Nortu Portico: — Stylobate. — An irregular piece, 0.33 m. long and 0.035—0.15 m. wide, in the south 
edge of the west block on the north side (Puate IT). 

Pavement. — A piece, 0.13 m. long and 0.022 m. wide, near the doorway into the Pandroseum. 

Column bases. — In the southwest column, a bit of the guilloche, and in the fillet below the upper 
torus, a piece about 0.115-0.10 m. long, 0.045 m. thick, and 0.02 m. high; on the second column 
from the east, two bits of the guilloche. They were probably secured by cement as there are no 
holes for plugs. 

Capitals. — In the cushions on the east side of the second from the east, a pair of reels in the first, 
second, and fourth rows from the north; in the second from the west, a strip of astragalus, 
0.245 m. long, in the abacus on the south part of the east side, and on the north side of the 
capital, a part of a dart in the echinus (Fig. 137). 

In the capital of the eastern anta, on the north face, a rosette of a tendril. 

Epistyle. — North side: — Outside. — The entire upper set of mouldings on the western block 
(PLATE V); and the small upper moulding on the eastern block. Inside. — All of the upper 
moulding on both the eastern and western (Fig. 138), but none on the central block; a short piece 
of the sheath of an egg near the west end of the central block. 

East side: — Outside. — All but the southern section of the upper moulding on the northern 
block, in five separate pieces, with a return of two units at the northern end (Puars III); a 
small piece, 0.067 m. long, near the centre of the southern block, apparently to repair some 
damage. Inside. — On the northern block, the upper moulding, not including the astraga- 
lus, in four pieces; on the southern block, the entire upper moulding in three pieces (PLATE 
IX). 

South side: — The mouldings on the western block above the astragalus (PLare VII). On 
the block beneath the opening in the roof, a reel in a square hole. 

West side: — Outside. — Southern block, four reels. Inside. — Southern block, a little north 
of the centre, lower portion of tongue, secured by a bronze plug rectangular in section, 
which is still in place; a reel, three units of the ornament north of the bronze plug. 

Beams and Interbeams. — None of these mouldings was worked on a separate strip, though some 
single bits of carving were inserted. East beam. — On the east side, 0.81 m. from the south end, 
part of the sheath surrounding an egg (Fig. 113), and 0.51 m. north of the centre, one reel set 
in a drill hole; on the west side, 0.57 m. from the north end, a strip of the upper astragalus 
0.40 m. long. The next beam to the west. — On the west side, under the second coffer from the 


north, a reel set in a square hole. West beam. — On the east side a rectangular cutting at the 
bottom near the north end. 


1 See Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 211 


Figure 137. NORTH PORTICO: UPPER DRUM OF SECOND COLUMN FROM WEST, SHOWING 
CUTTING FOR AN INSERTED DART 


Coffers of the Ceiling. — Third row from east, second block from the north, west side, a strip of 
astragalus 0.40 m. long, held by inclined bronze pins; southern block, east side, a similar strip 
0.145 m. long, also held by inclined bronze pins. In the coffers there are in all ten inserted strips 
of astragalus, varying in length from 0.04 m. to 0.43 m., and also two single reels set in drill holes. 

Pediment. — In the stone east of the centre, a piece 0.121 m. deep, 0.30 m. wide, and 0.255 m. 
high (PLATE V). ; 

Raking cornice. — In the fragment lying west of the Erechtheum, a strip of the astragalus 0.20 m. 
long. 

Nort Door: — East jamb. — Three reels in the centre astragalus, two respectively 0.92 m. and 
1.025 m. above the sill, the third 0.062 m. below the lintel, all set on as single pieces. For the 
Roman repairs, see below. 

Porcu oF THE MatwrEns: — Podium. — A piece, 0.58 m. long, about 0.125 m. high, and 0.15 m. 
thick, in the lower moulding of the coping behind the second Maiden from the east. Outside, in 
the egg-and-dart of the upper course, at the first joint from the west on the south side, half a 
dart, held by making the cavity wider at the back (Fig. 141). 

Maidens. — The left arm (now lost) of the Maiden at the southeast corner, secured at the shoulder 
by a square marble tenon fastened by a metal pin, and at the hand by four pin dowels, 0.008 m. 
in diameter, set in cement (PLATES XXVIII, XXXIV, 1; Fig. 1458). In the front of the capital 
of the same Maiden, a strip of the astragalus. On the west side of the capital of the Maiden 
at the southwest corner, two strips of astragalus (PLatE XX XIX, 2; Fig. 147). 

Epicranitis. — The upper mouldings on the two central blocks (p. 113). 

Architrave. — Outside. — The third disc from the west on the south face. Inszde.— On the wall, 


the upper moulding, including the astragalus, on the eastern and central blocks (Fig. 139); parts 
of three sheaths below the eggs. 


Figure 138. NORTH PORTICO: WEST BLOCK OF ARCHITRAVE ON NORTH SIDE 


The egg-and-dart moulding was carved on separate strips 


Ficure 139. INSERTED MOULDING FROM ARCHITRAVE ON WALL, INSIDE PORCH OF THE MAIDENS 


[ 212 ] 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 213 


Coffers of the Ceiling. — Three strips of the astragalus, from 0.12 m. to 0.18 m. long, one near the 
central coffer of the east row, another near the next coffer to the south, and the third north of 
the north coffer in the second row from the east; three double reels and one single reel near the 
north end of the fourth row from the east; one single reel on the west side of the second coffer 
from the south in the east row. 


The Roman repairs also show examples of inserted pieces. In the lintel of the North 
Door there are two repairs in the egg-and-dart moulding, one extending from the west half 
of the second egg from the east to the axis of the dart between the fourth and fifth eggs, the 
other including the tenth and eleventh eggs with the dart and sheath of the ninth and 
twelfth. Contrary to the Greek custom, the vertical joint does not coincide with the edge 
or with the axis of a dart, but is allowed to fall at any point, even passing through the centre 
of an egg. The Roman astragalus is much coarser than the Greek, and probably on this 
account there are no instances of inserted beads or reels. On the capital of one of the 
columns of the West Fagade a volute was broken and the piece refastened by means of a 
metal plug. At the same end, the upper south inside corner of the Roman architrave over 
the second intercolumniation from the south was irregularly broken off, but was repaired 
by replacing the broken piece and securing it with wrought iron pins and small 4 clamps 
(Puate X; Fig. 48). 

The methods employed by the Greeks in attaching the inserted pieces show great variety 
and skilful adaptation to the particular needs in each case. The larger pieces of moulding 
are regularly fastened to the architraves by dowels and | clamps (Fig. 140, 2,4). In 
these cases the vertical joint follows carefully the profile of the dart either through its 
whole length (Fig. 140, 1, from the inside of the west block on the north side of the North 
Portico), or only in the upper part (Fig. 140, 3, from the inside of the north block on the 
east side of the North Portico). Smaller pieces were apparently dovetailed only where it 
was possible to slip them in from above, as for example in the top of an architrave, the base 
of a column, and perhaps the top of a wall block, though in the latter case precise data are 
lacking.? No instances were observed where lead was run in to secure a piece. Sure traces 
of the use of cement were found only in the attachment of a strip of the astragalus on the 
necking of the southern column of the East Portico, and in a few cases in the Porch of the 
Maidens. In general the pieces were so carefully carved that cement was unnecessary, 
as in the piece of sheath from the North Portico (Fig. 113) already mentioned. A dart 
was secured only by a slight countersinking in the ceiling of the North Portico and in 
one of the blocks of the epicranitis from the main building, now in London (Fig. 142 a). 
In these latter blocks there are also several places where a reel was simply applied (Fig. 
142 B). In such cases cement may have held the inserted pieces in place. At other points 

1 On the south block on the east side of the North Portico the astragalus is included in the attached piece. 

2 In the podium of the Porch of the Maidens, where part of a dart has been inserted at a joint and secured by 


making the cavity wider at the back (Fig. 141), the new piece must have been slipped in before the next stone was 
laid. 


METHODS 
OF 
ATTACHING 
INSERTED 
PIECES 


214 THE ERECHTHEUM 


there is either a square (Fig. 142 c) or circular hole back of the reel. It seems probable 
from the size of the hole that a bronze pin was often used rather than a tenon of marble; 
thus for securing two reels the hole is 0.012 m. deep and 0.007 m. in diameter, and for a 
single reel 0.011 m. deep and 0.004 m. in diameter. The use of such pins is certain in the 
coffers of the North Portico, where strips of the astragalus were held by slanting bronze 
pins, and in those of the Porch of the Maidens. Another pin remains on the inside of the 
western architrave of the North Portico, where it secured half of a dart. In general the 
depth of the hole approximately equals the projection of the ornament in front of the hole. 


V, A. REFINEMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION 


The preceding pages have furnished abundant proof of the care with which the builders 
of the Erechtheum planned their work and of the minute attention which they bestowed 
upon the execution of details, even though untoward circumstances evidently prevented 
them from giving all parts their final form. In addition to the carefully calculated variations 
in the ornamentation, the general construction exhibits numerous refinements which have 
been duly noted in the preceding chapter, but may here conveniently be collected and 
summarized with references to the pages where they are described. 

The curvature of all the main lines, which plays so important a part in the Parthenon, is 
absent from the Erechtheum (p. 18), the only curves in construction noted being the hyper- 
bolas in the entases of the columns of the North Portico (p. 82) and of the Roman West 
Facade (p. 66).! 

Although curved lines are lacking there are many cases of scarcely perceptible inclina- 
tion given to vertical surfaces. Thus the stylobate and steps of the main building have a 
batter of 0.003 m. per course (p. 18). The columns of the East Portico are inclined toward 
the wall 0.02 m. in their height of 6.586 m. (p. 20), and the corner columns have the same 
inclination toward the centre (p. 19). The east wall was vertical (p. 34), and so was the 
east face of the southeast anta, but the south face of this anta inclines inward at the rate of 
0.00055 m. per course (p. 46). The south wall has a batter of 0.0115 m. in ten courses, and 
the north wall, outside of the North Portico, of 0.0105 m. in the same distance (pp. 46, 48). 
The faces of the west wall and of the interior cross-walls were, like the east wall, vertical (p. 
34). The west faces of the west antae incline inwards; the east face of the north anta was 
vertical; the east face of the south anta is vertical in the lower courses and parallel to the 
west face above course 9; the south face of the north anta and the north face of the south 
anta incline towards the north (p. 62). In the North Portico, the anta, pier, and wall have 
alike a batter of 0.02 m. in ten courses (pp. 48, 86). The corner columns incline inward on 
the diagonals of the portico to the extent of 0.018 m. in their height of 7.635 m. (p. 80); the 


1 The delicate parabolic curve given to the soffit of the cornices (pp. 24, 93, 115) is an example of fine design 
rather than a true refinement in construction. It is not a curve where a straight line might be expected. 


YY Yip yg JMU); 


x 


CK ONC ONC 


y 


° 0,1 O2ies1 es 
| 
fete} <p ——f |, 
) o4 0,2 0,3 OA --- A. 


Ficure 140. INSERTED MOULDINGS FROM NORTH PORTICO, SHOWING METHOD OF 

FASTENING AND TREATMENT OF JOINTS IN EGG-AND-DART ORNAMENT. 1, VER- 

TICAL JOINT FOLLOWS PROFILE OF DART. 2, SECTION, SHOWING METHOD OF 

DOWELING AND CLAMPING IN 1. 3, VERTICAL JOINT FOLLOWS PROFILE OF DART 
ONLY IN UPPER PART. 4, TOP OF INSERTED MOULDING 


= 8K 
& Hic 


C 
Figure 141. METHOD OF INSERTING HALF A DART: 
CROWNING MOULDING OF PODIUM, PORCH Figure 142. (A) INSERTED DART SECURED 
onic si rniiad BY A SLIGHT SINKING OF ITS LOWER PART 


(BRITISH MUSEUM). (B) INSERTED REEL 
WITHOUT TENON (BRITISH MUSEUM). (C) 
INSERTED REEL SECURED BY A TENON 
(BRITISH MUSEUM) 


[ 215 ] 


216 THE ERECHTHEUM 


two front columns incline 0.018 m. to the south, and 0.0075 m. toward the centre (p. 80); 
the south column on the east side inclines 0.018 m. to the west and 0.005 m. to the south 
(p. 80). The frieze has a batter of 0.005 m. (p. 91), and the face of the cornice at the north 
end of the east side an inclination of 0.0025 m. (p. 93). In the Porch of the Maidens, the 
axis of the architrave is placed 0.008 m. behind the axis of the podium (PLats X XVI), thus 
securing the same effect as is attained by the delicate inclination of the walls and columns. 

The sides of the doors and windows, also, were very slightly inclined, so that the openings 
are narrower at the top than at the bottom. At the east end the door and windows had an 
inclination of 0.003 m. per course (pp. 35, 36, 37, 40). The windows at the west, which are 
Roman, have been reconstructed (1905) with an inclination of 0.008 m. per metre; according 
to Stuart and Revett the inclination was 0.017 m. (p. 69). In the North Portico the jambs 
of the great door are inclined 0.0435 m. in a height of 4.882 m. (PLATE XXV); the sides of 
the small door taper at the rate of 0.005 m. per metre (PLatE VII). In the Porch of the 
Maidens the present inclination of the sides of the doorway is 0.009 m. per metre (p. 119). 


V, B. IRREGULARITIES AND EXTRAVAGANT CONSTRUCTION 


In spite of the admirable skill and delicacy shown in the Erechtheum, there are also in- 
stances of irregular or even careless construction, and of an extravagant expenditure of 
material. They may be most conveniently treated in the order in which they occur on the 
building. 

At the east end the steps leading from the upper to the lower level are not all of the 
same height. The higher order of the North Portico of course demands a higher stylobate 
than the lower order of the East Portico (PLATE XIV, above). The four lowest steps were 
naturally given the height of the three steps and the moulding at the base of the north wall, 
which is the same as that of the stylobate of the North Portico; while the eight other steps 
were each 0.078 m. lower, being each one-half the height of the corresponding course of the 
wall, which is also that of the steps of the East Portico. This irregularity, while objection- 
able owing to the danger of falling on account of the unequal height of the steps, may be 
explained by the desirability, from a constructive point of view, of aligning the horizontal 
jointing of the flight of steps with the jointing of the adjacent wall and base.! 

At the northeast corner of the main building a vertical joint in the poros foundation fell 
so close to one in the stylobate, that the T-dowel, which secured the latter, could not occupy 
its normal position, but was set back from the face of the stone and leaded in a quite un- 
usual way (p. 194; Fig. 122). In the lowest step north of the anta two = clamps, which 
extended beyond the step above, were countersunk and concealed by inserted rectangular 
bits of marble (p. 18; Puate XVII, 4; Fig. 17). 

1 There was no barrier at the north end of the East Portico to prevent a fall from the podium, which is about ten 


feet high, but the risk of such an accident was probably considered small then, as it is now, when the top of the retain- 
ing wall between the Erechtheum and the modern steps (PuaTE I) is equally unprotected. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 217 


On the columns of the East Portico there is a lack of uniformity in the arrangement of 
the anthemion (Piates III, XVI). The southern column has a palmette on the eastern 
axis, while the four central columns have a flower. On the northern column, as now set 
up in the British Museum, the eastern axis falls between a palmette and flower and the 
northern through a palmette (PLATE XXXVI, 2). This seems to approximate very closely 
to the original position of the band, for on a drawing of the eastern elevation of this capital, 
made for Choiseul-Gouffier before its removal,! there is a contemporary note, stating that 
the axis does not pass exactly through the centre of the palmette but “‘entre le fleuron et 
le culot.”” It is quite possible that the disposition of the ornament on the northern column 
was determined by the wish to bring its north face into harmony with the columns of the 
North Portico, where there is a palmette on both the northern and the eastern axis. 

In the bottom of the southeast orthostate the cutting for the cross-bar of the T-dowel 
which secured the block to the base moulding seems to have been first made in the normal 
position, near the middle of the north side, and later carried about 0.16 m. farther east to 
correspond with the cutting in the course below (PLatres XII, XVI), although why this 
latter cutting should have been given an unusual position, is quite uncertain. 

In stone F from the east wall (Fig. 21) there is a dowel hole in the north end, 0.22 m. 
from the east face, which seems to have been cut by mistake and never used; at least it 
shows no traces of oxidization. 

The lintels of the windows of the east wall were so cut on top that water would have 
run back into the horizontal joint of the wall, — an irregularity, however, which would 
have caused little damage at this point, since the windows were fairly well protected by 
the portico (PLatEs XV, XVIII, 1, X XIX, 3).? 

At the north end of the West Facade, in the lower moulding of the string course on the 
outside, is a slot cut lengthwise, apparently by a saw, and still preserved for about 0.75 m. 
It seems due to a mistake in measurement by the workman who started to cut the moulding. 

The greater elaboration given to the reeding on the moulding in line with the bases of the 
pilasters in the southern interco!umniation on the inside of the same fagade has already been 
noticed (p. 61). This special enrichment may be due to the presence of the “‘sea’’ in this 
corner of the Prostomiaion, but it may merely belong to an earlier scheme of decoration, 
which was abandoned because the effect was not satisfactory (PLaTEs X, XXX, 1, 2, 3). 

On the north face of the southwest anta there is a dowel cutting in course 10, running 
north and south, with no corresponding cutting in the stone below (PLatTE XII; Fig. 48). 

On the inside of the upper step of the north wall, near the eastern cross-wall, a mass of 
lead has been run in, so as to furnish a firm bed for the broken east end of a marble block, 
which for some reason it was thought best not to discard (PLATE XI; Fig. 93). 


1 This elevation is on page 136 of the volume of drawings attributed to LF. Cassas, now in the Louvre; see 
App. B, VI, p. 609, note 5. 
2 The same mistake was made in the roof of the Porch of the Maidens; see p. 219. 


218 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In the top of a stone replaced in the north wall in 1838, and now covered, the dowel cut- 
tings for the block above were first made on the wrong side of the central line, and later con- 
tinued to their proper place. As the holes for the dowels in the top of a course were naturally 
cut before the blocks of the course above were put in place, it is probable that these holes 
were originally cut with the expectation that the course above would be laid in the direction 
opposite to that actually followed. 

In the bottom of the second block east of the North Door on the inside of course 16 in 
the north wall (PLatE XI), about 0.25 m. from the south face, is a cutting 0.105 m. long 
(about 0.04 m. visible), 0.04 m. high, and 0.03-0.035 m. wide. There is apparently no corre- 
sponding cutting beneath it in the top of course 17, and its purpose is unknown. 

The orthostates of the north and of the lower south walls were not dressed to receive 
the stones of the cross-walls. A similar neglect in preparing a surface to receive an abutting 
stone is found on the exterior of the north wall at the point of contact with the eastern 
architrave of the North Portico (Fig. 54). 

In the North Portico the southeast block of the stylobate has two cuttings for dowels in 
the west side, which do not correspond to any similar cuttings in the block below (PLATE 
IX). This place is now hidden by cement. The block was actually held by two dowels in its 
north end. So also the great block spanning the southern side of the crypt had symmetrical 
cuttings for dowels in its north side; but the eastern cutting proved to be too far west and 
was never used, a new hole being cut farther east (PLATE VII). Likewise at the west end of 
the south wall, in course 20, beneath the east side of the south door, the southern dowel 
cutting was found to fall too near a joint in the poros course below, and a new cutting farther 
north was used (PLatTE IX; Fig. 6). 

By a curious oversight the cornice under the north pediment has no inclination (PLATE 
XXII), but is exactly horizontal from front to rear. , 

The continuation of the delicate mouldings at the base of the podium of the Porch of 
the Maidens across the opening in the eastern side, and the excessively high step at this 
point (PLats VII), seem like serious faults, but are intelligible, since it is all but certain 
that this was not a general entrance (p. 111). 

The arrangement of the steps in the interior of this porch is also bad (PLatn IX; Fig. 
68). A person who kept against the wall in his descent to the door into the main building 
would find a step of double height on reaching the point A in Figure 68. Here again the 
limited access to this part of the building would greatly reduce the practical disadvantages 
of this defect. 

In course 16, east of the door into the main building, there is a cutting which finds no ex- 
planation in the present position of the steps (PLaTE VII). Itis apparently due to a mistake 
either in laying out the steps, or, perhaps more probably, in indicating the final surface to 
be given to the wall. 


’ This cutting seems to have been interpreted by Penrose (Ath. Arch., p. 90) as marking an earlier flight of steps. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 219 


In the northwest architrave block, on the wall, are two cuttings for the dowel securing 
the western stone of the roof (PLatr XXVII, 9). The western cutting corresponds to the 
cutting in the roof. Evidently the cuttings were made before the upper stone was in place, 
and the unused cutting was due to a mistake in measurement. The great stones of the 
roof of the porch show the same fault already noted in the lintels of the east windows; 
they are so cut on top that water could have worked into the joint in the wall on and near 
the axis of the porch (PLATE X XVII, 2); but there are no traces of weather marks, such as 
might be expected if leakage had actually occurred. 

In addition to these cases of faulty construction, there are a number of places where 
sound construction was obtained only by somewhat striking disregard of economy in the use 
of material. A good example is found in the east anta of the North Portico. Above the 
orthostate this anta is cut on the blocks of the north wall of the main building, and to 
avoid a vertical joint on the face of the anta these blocks have in alternate courses (6, 8, 
etc.) twice the usual length (PLatmes VII, XI). The orthostate of the anta is a separate 
block (Fig. 664). A similar extravagant use of material is often due, as for example in the 
antae of the East Portico (Fig. 19), to the desire to avoid a mitred joint where mouldings 
are used.1 

The following additional examples will serve to show the extent to which these costly, and 
sometimes wasteful, methods of construction prevailed, though the list is not intended to be 
exhaustive. The base of the northwest anta and 0.75 m. of the moulded coping on the lower 
west wall are worked on a block of the north wall (PLarm XX, 12). At the southwest corner 
the anta is cut on the blocks of the south wall, which are of unusual length, especially in 
courses 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 (PLatss VI, VII, XII; Fig. 99). Although this construction is un- 
doubtedly expensive, it can hardly be called extravagant, since the thin wall in the niche 
called for special strength at this point. The same method was followed at the southwest 
corner of the North Portico, where the blocks of the wall running south beside the small door 
into the Pandroseum and, above the door, the blocks of the south wall of the portico are 
cut on the same stones as the corresponding courses of the great pier (PLatss IV, VII, XI; 
Figs. 36, 37). Above the door the blocks of the wall extend east from the pier alternately 
1.11 m. and 1.74 m. 

The Porch of the Maidens furnishes many examples. The capital of the east anta is 
worked on the face of the wall (PLatrs X XVII, 4, XXXVI, 4). The moulded course below 
the orthostate at the northeast corner is L-shaped (Puatss III, VII); ? and at the south- 
east corner even the architrave is a single large L-shaped block (PLate X XVII, 9). 


1 See Ch. I, p. 31, where attention is called to the peculiar form given to the orthostate of the north anta, 
which, while ranging with the orthostates on the east, is cut on the north to fit the normal jointing of the wall 
(Puates III, V; Fig. 17). 

2 Within the building the northwest corner of this block, which formed the top step of the inner staircase, is cut 
into a series of vertical jogs, probably in order that the block in course 14 of the wall, into the upper half of which the 
moulded course is set (Fig. 31), might be cut away at this corner as little as possible. The corner falls under the great 
transverse beam, that is, at a point where special strength was apparently deemed necessary. 


220 THE ERECHTHEUM 


On the north side of the building, at the junction with the North Portico, the steps and 
moulded course at the base of the wall are worked on the same blocks as the steps and the 
base of the anta of the portico. 

A similar construction was employed in the steps at the northeast corner leading up 
from the lower level to the east front, and in the little podium which here sustains the steps 
of the East Portico. In the steps the lowest, fourth (corresponding to the moulding along 
the base of the north wall), sixth, eighth, and two of the remaining four ' were L-stones, the 
step projecting from the adjacent block (PLATE V; Fig. 1). In the case of the podium, the 
lowest and third courses are also normal L-stones; the other courses up to the level of the 
top of the orthostate, as well as the two courses ranging with the upper half of courses 17 
and 16 in the north wall, enter the wall, making a vertical joint in the reéntrant angle. The 
other two courses of the podium and also the lowest and upper steps of the East Portico at 
this corner are cut on the same stones as the adjoining blocks in courses 17, 16, 15, and 14 
of the north wall (Figs. 1 at A, 143), a procedure involving a much greater expenditure of 
labor.? 

The thin strip with moulded edge at the base of the east wall (Phare XVI, right; Figs. 
17, 18, 143) is worked on the course ranging with the upper step, in spite of the fact that the 
front vertical joint of this course is considerably removed from the bottom of the wall. Here, 
however, the waste involved in cutting the stone down 0.04 m. was not very great, while if 
the thin strip had been cut on the moulded course below the orthostates, it would have been 
in serious danger of breakage. 


VI. CoLor 


That color,’ according to the common Greek practice, played an important part in the 
decoration of the Erechtheum is clear from the testimony of the inscriptions,’ as well as 
from the traces which may still be detected on the remains. A careful examination, how- 
ever, showed that in no case was the paint so well preserved that its original color could be 
determined with certainty. As the colors on the Propylaea are better preserved, and as 


1 Two of these stones, which are lying on the ground near the steps, have remains of an elbow. 

2 Figure 143 shows the peculiar shape given to the block which forms both the east end of course 14 in the north 
wall (a) and also the upper step of the East Portico at this point (B). By means of the projecting elbow (c), around 
which the course containing the lower torus and scotia at the base of the anta was fitted, the vertical joint on the 
north was concealed, and these mouldings appeared on this side to be carved on the block in the north wall (a), in the 
same way as the upper torus was carved on the orthostate above. The reéntrant angle at p served to strengthen the 
northern end of this moulded course beneath the orthostate by lessening the amount of stone which had to be cut 
away in order to fit the course around the elbow at c. For a similar strengthening at the northeast corner of the 
Porch of the Maidens, see p. 219, note 2. 

3 The traces of color in the decoration of the Erechtheum early attracted the attention of travellers, and their 
testimony is collected in Note C, at the end of this chapter. Only the evidence which can be gathered from the re- 
mains in their present condition is here considered. 

4 See Ch. IV, Inscriptions XJ, col. m1, ll. 42-46; XIII, col. 1, ll. 21-24, 42-50; XVII, col. m1, Il. 12-22, and Com- 
mentary, pp. 368, 410. The language of the inscriptions proves, as might have been expected, that the encaustic 
process was employed in painting the architectural members. The fragments of colored stucco found by Bétticher 


in the niche (Note C, v) can hardly have formed part of the Greek decoration, and it is very doubtful if they were 
even Roman. 


Figure 143. EAST PORTICO: BLOCK BENEATH BASE OF NORTH ANTA. ABOVE: BLOCK AS 
EXPOSED, DECEMBER 4, 1908. BELOW: ISOMETRIC DRAWING 


[221] 


222 THE ERECHTHEUM 


different colors there have weathered differently, an attempt was made to determine the 
colors originally used on the Erechtheum by comparing the relative preservation of different 
parts of the painted surfaces with those of the Propylaea. It was found, however, that the 
results were so conflicting that no certain color scheme could be deduced by this method. 
It may be added that no sure trace of color was detected on any of the carved mould- 
ings,! although some of the flat surfaces and uncarved mouldings have preserved remains of 
painted decoration, the patterns of which can occasionally be completely recovered. Thus 
the maeander which framed the coffers in the ceiling of the North Portico can be restored in 
all its details (Fig. 58 4), and in the coffers themselves the painted eggs and the motive at 
the corners (Fig. 588) can be plainly traced. The extant Roman coffers of the east ceiling, 
however, contain no trace of their painted decoration, and Inwood’s plate is avowedly a 
restoration.2. There are also indistinct traces of a painted leaf-and-tongue pattern on the 
bed moulding of the raking cornice of the North Portico. On the epicranitis in the niche 
there is a series of faint and not very regular vertical scratches, which may well be connected 
with a painted decoration. In the Porch of the Maidens, there are remains of a painted 
egg-and-dart decoration in the coffers, and of painted bands between the coffers and around 
the carved astragalus which frames the coffers (PLATES XXVI, XXVII, 3). 

The colored beads in the guilloche of the capitals of the North Portico, and the use of 
metal decorations in these same capitals and in the coffers of the ceiling have been already 
discussed in Chapter I, pp. 84, 85, 89. 


VII. Foot: VARIATIONS 


In the Erechtheum, as in other Greek buildings on the Acropolis, the unit of measure- 
ment is the foot of 0.328 m.;? but in the application of this unit slight variations are allowed. 

Thus the standard block of the wall is four feet (1.812 m.) long, but the stones them- 
selves vary between 1.29 m. and 1.31 m., the usual length being close to 1.30m. Perhaps 
the blocks were first cut to the standard length and then reduced in the final dressing of the 
ends. The great stones which form the roof of the Porch of the Maidens also vary in width 
from 1.447m. to 1.657 m. (4 At. ft. 6.5 dact. to 5 At. ft.0.8 dact.), and the three central blocks 
of the eastern architrave are 2.115 m., 2.104 m., and 2.116 m. long (6.5 At. ft. = 2.132 m.). 

Such variations suggest that the builders were not over particular about minute accu- 
racy of measurement in details, and this conclusion is strengthened by some of the varia- 
tions observable in the height of blocks in the walls. In course 15 of the south wall, for 
example, the block at the centre of the building is 0.484 m. high, that beside the door into 
the Porch of the Maidens only 0.478 m., a difference of 0.006 m. in five and one half blocks; 


1 In Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409, traces of color are said to be visible on a slab of the epicranitis, but 
these traces are now by no means clear. 

2 Inwood, text to PLATE XX (ed. maj., p. 126; ed. min., p. 14). 

® Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XV, 1890, pp. 167 ff. The present study of the Erechtheum has only confirmed his re- 
sults. The Palm is 0.082 m., and the Dactyl 0.0205 m. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 223 


on the other hand in course 16, near the centre of the west cella the height is 0.50 m., while 
at the door it is 0.504 m., a variation of 0.004 m. in four blocks. It will be observed, how- 
ever, that these two irregularities in effect counteract each other, so that the top of course 
15 is practically level. In the east wall stone E (Fig. 20) in course 11 is 0.483 m. high at the 
door, and 0.4845 m. at its north end, while the north face of the north anta is 0.487 m. In 
the west wall the orthostates are 0.755 m. high at the north end, 0.749 m. north of the west 
door, and 0.745 m. south of the door. In the North Portico the orthostate of the pier at 
the southwest corner (0.9384 m.) is lower than the orthostate in the north wall east of the 
small door into the Pandroseum (0.976 m.), but to compensate for this inequality each of 
the three courses above the orthostate in the pier is higher than the corresponding course 
in the wall, so that a horizontal surface is secured for the lintel of the door (PLATE VII). 


VIII. Ancient REPAIRS AND RESTORATIONS 


In the preceding chapter it has been shown that the Erechtheum, before its transforma- 
tion into a church, had undergone extensive repairs and some alterations. Without repeat- 
ing in detail the evidence there given, a summary of the results may be found convenient. 

At the east end the columns and the entablature show no signs of repair, and the inter- 
beams underwent only a slight alteration in the removal of the upper moulding on the 
inner face (p. 29). The ceiling of the portico was reconstructed, since all the fragments of 
the coffers, as well as the single identified fragment of a beam, are Roman (pp. 28, 29). In 
the east wall the underside of the lintels of the windows and the reveals of the jambs 
were trimmed (p. 45), the inner face of the architrave was cut away to about one-half the 
thickness of the blocks (p. 45), and the interbeams were replaced (p. 29). 

The epicranitis and epistyle of the side walls were also generally reduced to about half 
their original thickness, and the inner face replaced by new blocks (p. 52), though it 
would seem that in a few cases only a new set of mouldings was inserted. Much of the 
cornice of the main building which has survived is due to the repairers (pp. 54, 75), and 
so are the simas, a good part of the tiling, and all the identified antefixes (p. 79). 

The most extensive repairs were those at the west end, where everything between the 
antae and above the bases of the engaged columns was renewed with but slight use of old 
material (pp. 66, 70 ff.), while the north anta was cut down to half its former width (p. 69), 
and a new capital added (p. 62). 

The presence of cuttings for = clamps shows that some repairs were made on the east- 
ern interior cross-wall (p. 148), while the western wall was entirely removed, and a new and 
higher wall erected slightly farther west (p. 156), probably leaving a single chamber in the 
centre of the building instead of the two Greek rooms (p. 159). There is also evidence of 
some slight alteration in course 8 of the niche (p. 172), and it is possible that the jambs of 
the doorway leading into the Porch of the Maidens were cut down on their north sides dur- 
ing these repairs, rather than at the time of the transformation into a church (p. 119). 


224 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In the North Portico the lintel and the remaining console of the great door belong to the 
Roman repairs (pp. 99 ff.), as well as the central beam (p. 87), the interbeam on the wall 
to the west of this beam (p. 87), the two southern coffers in the first row and two farther 
north in the second row to the west, and the whole row of coffers to the east (p. 89 and 
Piate VIII, 4). The two western blocks in the course on the north wall above the beams 
and interbeams at the west corner of the building are apparently Roman; the others are 
Greek, cut back and relined (p. 51). The cornice of the Portico was evidently repaired 
and under the pediment contains some later blocks (p. 92); the tympanum and the raking 
cornice seem to have been merely taken down and replaced without any new material 
(p. 94); and, so far as can be judged from the presence in the cornice of cuttings for dowels 
with pour channels, only the sima on the east side of the Portico needed renewal (p. 97). 
The antefixes, so far as identified, are Roman. 

In considering the probable cause of this restoration, the tiles, sima, and perhaps cor- 
nice may well be omitted, since their exposed position sufficiently accounts for the need 
of renewal, and similar restorations are found elsewhere.’ The other repairs, however, 
show that the building had suffered serious injuries, which necessitated extensive restora- 
tions throughout the entire upper part of the interior, but affected the exterior chiefly in the 
neighborhood of openings, such as doors and windows. That this damage was due to a fire 
originating within the building seems certain from the condition of the surface of the walls, 
which is fairly well preserved on the outside but inside shows almost everywhere the effects 
of intense heat. It is clear that the burning of the wooden ceilings would injure the inner 
faces of epicranitis and architrave, as well as the beams and interbeams on the eastern wall, 
while flames bursting through the various openings would amply explain the need of cutting 
away the linings of the east windows and of rebuilding the West Facade. It may be added 
that the destruction of the great transverse beam accounts for the new and stronger form 
given to the west cross-wall. The repairs in the North Portico indicate that the damage 
there was largely confined to the lintel of the great door and the parts directly above this 
opening, including the central beam of the ceiling. It seems reasonable, therefore, to con- 
clude that all these restorations were due to the same cause and were carried out at the same 
time, and this hypothesis is confirmed by the uniformity shown in the form of clamps and 
dowels, the dressing of the surfaces, and the carving of the mouldings. 

That the repairs are Roman, rather than Hellenistic, is evident from the character of the 
workmanship and its close resemblance to that displayed in the temple of Rome and Augus- 
tus,” which was erected in the latter part of the first century B.c. That the fire was earlier is 
proved by the presence of a fragment of cornice from the Erechtheum in the foundation of 
the new temple (p. 75). 

1 Cf. Olympia, II, pp. 8, 22. 


2 Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XXVIII, 1903, p. 467, suggests that the architect of the temple was responsible for the 
repairs on the Erechtheum. For a fuller consideration of the dates of the fire and of the restoration see Ch. V, pp. 478 f. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 225 


NOTE A 


ON THE CEMENT USED IN THE Porcu oF THE MAIDENS 
(p. 196) 


Samples of the cement used to secure the iron pins in the Porch of the Maidens were submitted 
to Professor Kenneth L. Mark of Simmons College, Boston, who has kindly furnished the following 
report on his analysis. 


“Sample I, marked ‘from inserted moulding in the cap. of the 8. W. Caryatid,’ was greyish-white, 
rather soft powder. 

“Sample IT, marked ‘from north plug hole in cap. of 8. W. Caryatid’ was pinkish material composed 
of small lumps easily crushable between the fingers. 

“Sample IIT, marked ‘from south plug hole in the cap. of the N. W. Caryatid’ was very fine 
pinkish powder. 

“Sample III was too small in amount to use for quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis, 
however, showed it to be a carbonate of calcium with a small amount of iron.! 

““The analysis of Samples I and II showed them to be of the following composition: 


I II 
UEC SOL GR Ce a ee ss re ee, coat slept bly es rT 56.1 55.1 
aE aM Ae eR or eek 3 cco aes a ope ae Posd Pie oe bosib On ns 2.1 
aE Ste ah MO rd ere a be Woks a ON ee code eee has 0.6 0.7 
ESTA GSM OREES PSS OE SREEY SEE SE Ene oe eee ee Ee See 43.8 43.5 
SSAREIP 8 io a Seale 8 2 Be aks 3 OE a et a a 0.4 0.5 
100.9 101.9 


‘“The amount of carbon dioxide is in slight excess of the amount required to unite with the metallic 
oxides if they were fully carbonated. The analysis for carbon dioxide, however, is not so reliable, 
on account of the very small amount of the samples, as are the results for the other constituents. 
The lack of silicate is most remarkable and it is difficult to see how this mortar could have been strong 
at any time. Even if it were used as quicklime and then changed to carbonate by weathering, as is 
possible, it could have had no great strength. This is also the opinion of the experts at the Massa- 
chusetts Institute of Technology, whom I consulted. 

“Pulverized marble would give the same analytical results as those reported. I cannot see, 
however, why that should ever be used as a cement, as it would have no adhesive properties worth 
mentioning. 

“The only record of analyses of Greek mortars, which I have found, is that of William Wallace 
published in The Chemical News, XI, 1865, pp. 185-186.” 

The article by Dr. Wallace begins as follows: ‘Having, by the kindness of William Clarke, Esq., 
C. E., who has recently returned from the East, been supplied with specimens of mortars and plas- 
ters from well-known ancient buildings in Egypt, Greece, Italy, and the Island of Cyprus, I have sub- 
mitted a number of them to analysis, with the object of determining several points of interest.” 

The portion of the article relating to Greece is as follows: 

“ Ancient Greek Mortars. — The first specimen is taken from a part of the Pnyx.... It has 
been long exposed to the action of the weather, is very hard, and of a greyish white colour. The 
other specimen is plaster from the interior of an ancient temple at Pentelicus, near Athens.? It has 


1 This iron may perhaps be due to the iron pin which was secured by this cement. — Ep. 
2 This “temple” is perhaps the cave at Vari. No such sanctuary on Mt. Pentelicus seems known. — Ep. 


226 THE ERECHTHEUM 


not been exposed to the weather, the temple being in a cave; it is of a pale cream colour, and mod- 


erately hard. The analytical results are the following : — 
PNYX TEMPLE AT PENTELICUS 


dP a a ey eee oe RI er au eek, Ale Ch ini Wins choice ato ay te 45.70 49.65 
Magnesia. Are 8 Gs iad pcre ote Melon Me eee cui? omer anlar rn aera 1.00 1.09 
Sulphuric acid 2 i ges gcui voter teens ata saree ore sir inane ee 1.04 
Carbomic- acidic © anne sft eee ties coins ence cre ketene (tse ker ee mee a 37.00 38.33 
Seaquioxide:of iron <2... 24:0 92- 5o% gree se tgin Sin mel ane 0.92 0.82 
Aliyah ies eS ce ecg St Fe recess fit ian 2.64 0.98 
ST GIG ACIG ANG. SALI. seee ese eee alee ee anon on clie ten eee 12.06 3.90 
Waters iu clox'd pg Ste ee Ree ee ei he eee eee a, ne et en 0.36 3.07 

99.68 98.88 


“Tn the mortar from the Pnyx the carbonic acid is exactly the amount required by the lime and 
magnesia, supposing both to be completely carbonated; in that from the temple the carbonating is 
nearly, but not quite complete.” 


NOTE B 


On tHE Woop USED IN THE EMPOLIA OF THE East PORTICO 
(p. 196) 


Some splinters from the empolion in the bottom of the capital of the southeast corner column of 
the East Portico were sent to Professor Irving W. Bailey of Harvard University, who has kindly 


6°21 9 2g 
taSigce 


& 
» 
e 
€ 
a 


«e 
@ 
ey 
* 
s 


33 
nets 


Ficure 144. cRoss (A) AND TANGENTIAL-LONGITUDINAL (B) SECTIONS OF WOOD OF Cupressus sempervivens, L.: 
FROM EMPOLION IN BED OF SOUTH CAPITAL OF EAST PORTICO: MAGNIFIED SIXTY DIAMETERS 


submitted the following report of his examination as well as reproductions of two highly magnified 
sections. 

“The small fragments of wood (7 < 13 X 2% millimetres), submitted to me for identification, 
are very soft and brittle owing to incipient stages of decomposition. In order to determine ac- 
curately the affinities of the material it has been necessary to infiltrate two of the fragments with 


nitro-cellulose. By this treatment I was able to cut thin sections of the wood and examine them 
microscopically (Fig. 144). 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 227 


“Diagnosis of material. — The general structure of the specimens is that characteristic of Conif- 
erous or “evergreen” trees. The absence of resin passages, marginal tracheids, and heavily pitted 
ray parenchyma, and the presence of diffuse wood parenchyma indicate conclusively that the ma- 
terial was obtained from some member of the Cupressineae of which our cypresses, cedars, arbor 
vitae, and juniper are well-known representatives. The detailed structure of the specimens is iden- 
tical with that of the common European cypress, Cupressus sempervivens L. 

‘This tree, which is native in Greece, grows in the Mediterranean region, Asia Minor, and Persia. 
It may attain a height of 100 feet, and a diameter of 7 feet. The wood is reddish, fragrant, hard, fine 
and close grained, and extremely durable.’ It is supposed to have been used for many purposes by 
the primitive peoples of the Mediterranean.” 


NOTE C 


ON THE TRACES OF COLOR OBSERVED BY EARLY TRAVELLERS 
(p. 220) 


The existence of painted patterns in the coffers of the North Portico and of the Porch of the 
Maidens has been pointed out in the description of those parts of the building (pp. 89, 116) as also 
the fact that at present it is impossible to determine with certainty the colors employed in these 
patterns or on the sculptured decorations (p. 222). Earlier observers were — or believed themselves 
to be — more fortunate, and have reported the traces of color which they detected both on the plane 
surfaces and on the mouldings. Their testimony, which is here collected, must be received with 
caution, for in most cases it does not appear how far they were able, or even tried, to eliminate the 
variations in tint due to weathering and accidental discoloration.! Only those passages are here cited 
which contain definite statements, based on personal investigation, as to the colors used and their 
distribution. Before the Greek Revolution such details are rarely given. Dodwell? (on the authority 
of Lusieri) and Kinnard * mention traces of painting and gilding in the coffers of the North Portico, 
and a manuscript note by T. L. Donaldson‘ states that in the capitals “the sinking around the volute 
was painted red.’”’ Other writers of this time merely note the presence of the painted maeander and 
other patterns, without attempting to define the colors used,*® and such general statements are, of 


1 Such discoloration due to smoke is reported by Blaquiere in 1824 (Second Visit to Greece, I, p. 95), but appears 
in Haller von Hallerstein’s notes as a ‘‘vernis noir,” which he suspected to be of later application (MSS., Strasbourg, 
Box III, Vol. 8, p. 233). 

2 Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 352: “Its ancient ceiling ... is ... ornamented with square compartments, where 
the ancient gilding is still visible.”’ 

3 Kinnard, Stuart and Revett,? II, pp. 72-73, note c, says the coffers are “ornamented within with painted and 
gilded mouldings.” 

4 British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, a sheet (XLII, d, Portf. A) containing a colored 
drawing of the glass beads in the guilloche (see above, p. 85) and notes, in part by T. L. Donaldson, who was in Athens 
in 1820. The presence of color in the capitals is also mentioned by E. Metzger, Kunstblatt, 1833, No. 24, p. 95: “Es 
finden sich dort (i.e., in the North Portico) Farben in den Spiralen der ionischen Saulen.” 

5 So for example, Fauvel in Legrand, Gal. ant., I, p. 76: ‘‘Certains ornemens qu’il efit été trop difficile de sculpter 
dans les caissons renfoncés du plafond, y étaient peints”; Donaldson’s note (see preceding note): “The soffetes of the 
Caissons were decorated with painting and the moldings were also tinted in the form of eggs and darts.”’ “T think 
the faces of the beams were also painted.” Wolfe, Note-book, p. 39, ‘‘No ornament or painting discernible” on beams; 
“T could distinguish no remains of painting in them (the coffers), which some have [sc. distinguished]. . .. Greek border 
painted on margin.’”’ Metzger, Kunstblatt, 1833, No. 24, p. 95: “Am Erechtheum . . . finden sich, unter den Cassetten 
der Minerva-Polias-Halle (i.e., North Portico), umlaufende vielfach verschlungene Grecques, die nicht breiter als 
22 mm. sind. Es finden sich dort Farben in den Spiralen der ionischen Siulen so wie die Nagelspuren zur Befestigung 
einer umlaufenden Verzierung, die wahrscheinlich aus getriebenem und iibergiildetem Blech bestand. . . . Im Pan- 


228 THE ERECHTHEUM 


course, common later. The first attempt to describe accurately the character of the polychrome 
decorations seems to have been made by H. Hermann in 1836. Somewhat later C. H. Bracebridge 
communicated the results of his observations while in Athens to a committee of the Institute of 
British Architects, which was investigating the traces of color on the Elgin marbles, and in 1847 
J.-M. Tétaz once more subjected the remains of the Erechtheum to a minute examination. Finally 
in 1862 C. Botticher discovered in the niche at the southwest corner remains of painted stucco, which 
he believed to be part of the Greek decoration. Later writers seem in general to have relied upon 


these studies. 


I. H. Hermann, Allgemeine Bauzeitung (Vienna), I, 1836, No. 11, p. 86:1 

“Der Poliastempel. — Am Poliastempel scheint, den Spuren nach zu schliessen, weniger gemalt, 
dafiir aber mehr vergoldet gewesen zu sein; wahrscheinlich weil hier so viele Ornamente in erhabener 
Arbeit ausgefiihrt sind. Diese, im ganzen sehr zierlich und schén komponirten und ausgefiihrten 
erhabenen Arbeiten zeigen dennoch streckenweise eine verschiedene Behandlung von mehr oder 
minder geschickter Hand, so dass hieraus die Verschiedenheit der Kiinstler, die daran gearbeitet 
haben mégen, sich ersehen lisst, welcher Miss-stand jedoch nur bei genauer Vergleichung erkennbar, 
und nur aus diesem Grunde erklarlich bleibt. Die Deckenkasetten haben kleine, runde Oeffnungen, 
welche gewiss zur Befestigung von bronzenen und vergoldeten Rosetten dienten, worauf auch der 
unmittelbar um diese Oeffnung herum rauh gelassene Grund hindeutet. Dieser, so weit ihn nicht 
die Rosetten versteckten, mag wohl roth gewesen sein. Die Kasettenbalken dagegen scheinen einen 
blauen Grund gehabt zu haben, und an der wagrechten Flache derselben laufen in der Mitte stets 
2 erhaben gearbeitete Perlenstabe, welche roth und griin gemalt waren; neben diesen lauft rechts 
und links an derselben Flache ein blas gemaltes, 24 Zoll breites, doppeltes a la grecque in rother Farbe 
herum. Von den tibrigen gemalt gewesenen Theilen lisst sich die Farbe nicht leicht mehr erkennen.”’ 

Ibid., p. 82: On the colors used on the temples at Athens: ‘‘ Das vorkommende Roth ist entweder 
ganz dunkel, ins Braéunliche gehend, oder mehr hell zinnober-(ziegel-)roth, wenn es in der Nahe 
von Blau steht, oder mehr karmin-(purpur-)roth, wenn es von griiner Farbe umgeben ist. Das 
Blau ist meistens dunkelazurblau; das Griin bald hell bald dunkel meer-(apfel-)griin. Ausser 
diesen drei Farben und den Vergoldungen oder Bronzirungen, von welchen letztern hie und da 
noch einige etwas ungewisse Spuren zu finden sind, méchten wohl keine andern Farben in Anwen- 
dung gekommen sein, wenn man den durchscheinenden weissen Grund nicht auch als Farbe rechnen 
will. Bei den Figuren tritt 6fters noch ockergelb und violet hinzu.”’ 


II. Report of the Committee appointed to examine the Elgin Marbles, in order to ascertain 
whether any evidences remain as to the employment of color in the decoration of the architecture or 
sculpture. Read by W. R. Hamilton, Monday, 24th July, 1837.2 Transactions of the Royal Institute 
of British Architects, Vol. I, Part 2. 

Pp. 102-103. “The attention of the Committee was first directed to fragments Nos. 127 to 130 
inclusive, in black, being Nos. 252 to 255 red,’ portions of the Ionic antae capital and continuous 
mouldings of the Hexastyle Portico of the Erectheum. The object was to ascertain whether the in- 


droseum (i.e., Porch of the Maidens) sind in den Cassetten aufgemalte Sterne, Grecques, Hier und Herzlaub zu sehen.” 
Pittakis, L’ancienne Athenes, p. 404: “Dans l’intérieur de ce portique (the Porch of the Maidens) on voit des traces 
de peinture, la couleur rouge et bleue s’y distinguent facilement.” Rangabé, Ant. hellén. I, p. 62, in speaking of the 
coffers in the Porch of the Maidens: “Dans le fond de chacun on voit encore une grande étoile en couleurs.” 

1 Hermann was in Athens in the summer of 1835. After some general remarks he discusses in detail the traces of 
color on the Theseum, Propylaea, Parthenon, Erechtheum, and some single pieces. 

2 This Committee was appointed by the Institute of British Architects, December 5, 1836. It met at the British 
Museum, December 18, 1836, and June 1, 1837. Bracebridge’s letter (see below) was presented at the second ses- 
sion, as well as Donaldson’s memorandum on the colored glass beads in the guilloche of the capitals of the North 
Portico (p. 85). 

3 Br. Mus., Sculpture, I, p. 236, No. 409. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 229 


equalities of the surface of certain portions of the plain faces arose from a coating of some substance 
originally placed upon the surface of the marble, for the purpose of receiving the color or paint, or 
whether it resulted from the action of the weather. 

“Tt appeared upon examination by a powerful glass, that the raised portions, which remained 
in some parts, and which had a deeper ochrish tone than the rest of the marble, was the original 
surface highly polished, and that the general surface of the marble had been pretty equally worn 
away to the depth of about one-twentieth part of an inch by corrosion. 

“The ochrish tint also seemed the result of the weather, as upon examining portions of this and 
other blocks of marble which were broken, the fractured surface presented in some parts a like colour, 
produced evidently by the action of the weather, or other accidental circumstances, such as contact 
with the earth, etc.”’ 

Pp. 104-105. Letter of C. H. Bracebridge, dated Atherstone Hall, April 17, 1837.1 “Mr. 
Bracebridge is happy to forward a memorandum of patterns and colors from the Erechtheum; they 
are drawn from the northern portico of that conjoint temple of Minerva Polias, Pandrosus, and 
Erechtheus, so well known in the Acropolis. This side of the temple, being so well sheltered from the 
sea-breeze, has preserved its sculptured ornaments as fresh and sharp as if lately finished; and the 
columns of this portico being fluted with capitals elaborately worked and well-sheltered, have retained 
remains of color. At the top of the flutings especially, a thin coat of slate-colored paint is visible, 
at other points yellow and red color may be traced; but the remaining pieces are so small, and the 
colors so much faded as to leave the subject in dispute; this being alone certain, that there was 
color once carefully applied (at all events to the intaglio parts of the relief or concave parts of the 
capitals, etc.), and that this color was of various shades; the protuberant part of the work retains no 
color. The probability that blue, red, and yellow were used is very strong. Some portions of paint 
might be chipped off and subjected to analysis, which would determine what there is, in truth, but 
little or no doubt of.” 

Pp. 107-108. (From the report of the Committee): ‘‘Upon a consideration of all the facts con- 
tained in the preceding minutes, it appears to the Committee, that . . . some of the architectural 
fragments present indisputable traces of tone indicative of regular architectural ornaments, and that 
the outlines of such ornaments are distinctly traceable, being marked with a sharp instrument upon 
the surface of the marble. The Committee cannot positively state, from the appearance of the mar- 
ble, that such tones have been produced by color, as they think that none of the color itself remains, 
but that the indication of tone results from mere variation of surface. Judging, however, from the 
information contained in Mr. Bracebridge’s communication, there appears no reason to doubt that 
color has been applied.” 

A colored plate attached to this report contains from the Erechtheum a reproduction of the ar- 
rangement of the glass beads in the guilloche of the capitals of the North Portico (Ch. I, p. 85), and 
also a portion of the palmette and flower pattern from the same portico, not very accurately drawn. 
It shows the ground red, the palmette, flower, and tendril yellow, the calyx of the flower and the 
small leaves at the base and sides of the tendril (not the flower at the tip) light green, and the hori- 
zontal scroll and little spike at the base of the flower dark green on yellow. In the Library of the 
Royal Institute of British Architects is the original drawing for this pattern, ‘‘Presented by C. I. 
Richardson, 1837.”’ It bears the following note: “Ornament in the temple of Erechtheus. 4% the 
actual size. The Cup bright green. Flower straw-color. Scroll brown. Upright scroll (i.e., tendril), 
shaded orange.” It will be seen that the Sep ell which agrees with the colored wind: differs 
in some details from the published plate. 


1 The original letter is in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The text has only slight verbal 
differences from the printed version, which is here reproduced, except that Bracebridge’s spelling of Erechtheum has 
been followed instead of the “Erectheum” adopted by the Committee. Bracebridge was in Athens in 1835-1836. 


230 THE ERECHTHEUM 


III. A. R. Rangabé, Antiquités Helléniques, I, Athens, 1842. Pp. 64-65. Be 

The author is discussing the passage in the building accounts relating to the encaustic painting 
on the xuparvov (Ch. IV, pp. 410 f.), which Rangabé interpreted as referring to the architrave. 

‘Nous avons examiné avec attention les architraves du temple d’Erechthée qui sont par terre, 
dans l’espoir d’y découvrir des traces de cette peinture encaustique. On distingue sur quelques unes 
une certaine couleur brune, mais les contours du dessin qu’il devait y avoir ont été entiérement effacés. 
Les architraves qui sont encore en place peuvent étre difficilement examinées; il y en a 4 d’intactes 
sur les colonnes du portique 4 l’Est, mais leur partie qui regarde le temple est endommagée, et on ne 
peut y distinguer aucun vestige de peinture. Au contraire a la partie extérieure, sur la moulure 
supérieure on peut voir trés distinctement la peinture en couleur jaune, qui peut avoir été rouge, 
d’un riche méandre. II est surtout bien conservé sur le second bloc au N. H. et il est trés probable 
que toutes les trois moulures eussent été peintes d’une maniére pareille.’’ 4 


IV. J.-M. Tétaz, Revue Archéologique, VIII, 1851, pp. 92-94. 

““Décoration. En outre des grands motifs de peinture murale indiqués par Pausanias, la décora- 
tion architecturale de l’édifice était, comme celle du Parthénon, complétée par la peinture, par l’in- 
crustation d’ornements en bronze doré et méme d’émaux, et par des guirlandes attachées aux jours 
de féte au moyen de crampons de fer existant encore sur les coussinets des chapiteaux des colonnes du 
portique septentrional. Bien que fort peu de traces de la partie picturale de cette décoration acces- 
soire aient résisté au temps et & la pluie, 4 cause du peu de saillie de l’architecture ionique, le fait 
n’en est pas moins manifeste.2.. . 

‘Ces passages, conservés dans Vinscription, indiquent bien clairement la décoration qui rehaus- 
sait l’effet de la sculpture des moulures des architraves: les fonds, et sans doute les filets étaient peints; 
les ornements dorés. Une ornementation analogue avec quelque variété de tons peut s’en déduire 
pour toutes les autres lignes d’oves ou de raies de coeur des corniches, des antes et des chapiteaux. 
Ceux-ci d’ailleurs peuvent se restaurer d’une maniére presque compléte au moyen des traces qui 
subsistent encore aux chapiteaux des colonnes du portique septentrional. Les filets des volutes 
étaient rouges; le fond dans l’intérieur des volutes et au-dessus du tore orné d’entrelas, bleu; sur ce 
fond bleu couraient en spirale deux ornements de bronze doré, indiqués encore par leurs attaches, 
qui devaient s’épanouir en palmettes sur les deux surfaces de raccordement intérieures. Le tore au- 
dessus des oves était incrusté d’émaux de diverses couleurs formant les ceils des entrelas, 4 l’imitation 
d’une couronne de pierreries; le fond des oves était bleu sans doute, comme au chapiteau ionique 
des Propylées, les oves rouges ou plutét dorées pour se relier 4 la richesse du reste. L’ceil de la volute 
était de bronze doré incrusté dans le marbre. La couronne de palmettes qui termine le fat de la 
colonne ne conserve plus de traces de couleur; mais il y a quelques années celle des antes laissait 
encore reconnaitre le ton rouge du fond et le ton jaune clair des ornements avec quelques détails 
verts et bruns. Les chéneaux, dont le galbe était lisse, étaient ornés d’ornements peints: un frag- 
ment, qui par ses dimensions et la nature de ses ornements parait avoir appartenu au portique orien- 
tal, en conserve encore le dessin complet tracé 4 la pointe’ . . . 

“Les caissons des deux portiques septentrionaux et méridionaux ont, par leur position, conservé 
des traces assez importantes de leur décoration. Les trois quarts de rond de leurs renfoncements ont 
conservé le dessin 4 la pointe des oves qui les ornaient; leur fond est bleu, les lobes des oves ont 
souvent une couleur noiratre qui a di étre rouge. Au portique septentrional, le champ lisse qui sépare 


1 By “moulures,” Rangabé denotes the three fasciae of the Ionic architrave. No one else seems to have seen 
these traces of a painted maeander, and it is practically certain that Rangabé was deceived by the uneven discolora- 
tion of the marble due to water trickling through the bead-and-reel ornament above. 

2 The comments of Tétaz on the passages in the inscriptions dealing with the painting of the cymatium of the 
epistyle are omitted. 

° Here follows a brief argument by Tétaz to prove that the marble figures of the frieze and probably the ground 
of the tympana were painted. 


NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION 231 


et entoure les caissons est orné d’un double méandre rouge sur fond bleu. <A l’autre portique, ce 
méme champ l’est de trois filets rouge sur fond bleu.!' La grande porte du nord présente une particu- 
larité qui continue 4 prouver que la dorure avait une grande part A la coloration de cet édifice. Les 
boutons des rosaces du chambranle, sculptées en marbre sur le linteau, étaient de bronze sur les 
montants. Des cylindres de bois de cédre étaient encastrés dans le marbre pour les recevoir; plusieurs 
sont encore en place avec les trous qu’y ont laissés les queues des boutons de métal; tous ces boutons 
étaient donc dorés, tant ceux de marbre que ceux de bronze, ce qui probablement entratnait encore la 
dorure d’autres détails.” 


V. C. Bétticher, Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis zu Athen im Frihjahr, 1862, p. 205; also Zeit- 
schrift fiir Bauwesen, XIII, 1863, col. 590. 

“$7, Ueberrest des antiken Wandputzes und seiner Malerei. . . . In der Pandrososcella, hoch 
tiber dem Thiireingange nach der Korenhalle, rechts im Winkel welchen die Siidwand mit der West- 
wand bildet, befindet sich auf beiden Wianden eine Fliche von mehren Quadratfuss welche stark mit 
Mo6rtel aus christlicher Zeit tiberdekkt ist. Bei Untersuchung des Plinthenverbandes iiber dem 
Thiireingange, fiel mir nicht nur eine doppelte Lage von Mortel auf welche hier steht und von unten 
gar nicht wahrzunehmen ist, ich erkannte auch bald dass die untere Lage von dem antiken Putze 
gebildet werde, der durch die spitere Uebertiinchung geschiitz, noch véllig unbertihrt und in voller 
Frische seiner Farbe hier besteht; die vorsichtige Ablésung der obern Mortelschicht brachte sie an das 
Licht. Die Putzrinde ist ungemein diinn, kaum iiber eine Linie stark, der feine Putz von der festesten 
Textur; die Farbe ist demselben nicht imprdgnirt wie die Astricofarbung der pompejanischen Wiinde 
mit ihrer Silicathaut, sondern mit dem Pinsel sehr pastos aufgetragen, also sicher Harz und Wachs ihr 
Bindemittel. So weit die Flache von mir freigelegt ist zeigt sie Felder im Tone von indischem Roth 
und glanzendem Meergriin durch Streifen von goldgelber Okkerfarbe eingeschlossen; der bei weitem 
gréssere Theil aber liegt noch unter dem modernen Mortel geborgen.”’ 

Bétticher removed a few square inches for deposit in the Berlin Museum, and strongly com- 
mended the rest to the care of his friend, Rousopoulos. Unfortunately all this stucco has now com- 
pletely disappeared, apparently without further record or examination. Since this part of the temple 
was certainly damaged by the great fire, this bit of painting can hardly have formed part of the 
original Greek decoration, though it may possibly have belonged to the Roman restoration. 


VI. John Pennethorne, The Geometry and Optics of Ancient Architecture, pp. 202-203.? 

“There are no remains of colours externally on the Entablatures of the Erechtheium, but on the 
ceilings, both of the North and of the South Porticoes, there are traces of the engraved Ornaments, 
and also of the colours. In the ceiling of the North Portico the Ornaments are partly engraved and 
partly sculptured, with evident traces of colour, and in the Maeander, outlined between the lines of 
the beading, the blue is very distinct; the stars in each inner square appear to have been formed of 
metal gilt, and the Maeander also was probably relieved with gold on a blue ground. In the ceiling 
of the South Portico there are distinct traces between the lines of beading of simple lines having been 
drawn, probably relieved in gold, and there are also marks of blue on the engraved elliptical Orna- 
ments.” The ‘elliptical Ornaments” are the egg-and-dart mouldings. 


1In his Mémoire explicatif, p. 55, submitted to the Académie des Beaux-Arts with his drawings (MS., Bibl. 
Ee. B.—A.), Tétaz phrases this description differently: ‘Au portique méridional le méme espace était de deux 
filets bleu sur un fond qui a laissé une trace noiratre et qui trés probablement était rouge.” The difference is more 
apparent than real, for it would seem that the surfaces between the coffers were decorated with parallel stripes of red 
and blue, but that the width was so uncertain that either color could be regarded as the ground. The manuscript con- 
tains somewhat less about the use of color than the later text, but no other difference than the one cited in regard 
to its application. 

2 During two visits to Athens, between 1832 and 1834, Pennethorne studied the remains of color on the Athenian 
buildings, but his results were not published until 1878. 


CHAPTER III 


THE SCULPTURES OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


Tue sculptures of the Erechtheum comprised, in addition to such ornaments as palmettes, 
rosettes, guilloches, and the like, six female supporting figures, or caryatids, and a frieze. 
No evidence exists as to the size or form of the acroteria or the presence of sculptures in the 
pediments. The caryatids stood on the outer wall of the small southwestern porch as sup- 
ports for the entablature and roof. The frieze had its place above the epistyles of the east- 
ern and western facades and, at the same height, on the southern and northern walls of the 
main building, or cella, except where it was interrupted by the roof of the North Portico; 
it extended also above the architrave of the North Portico on the eastern, northern, and 
western sides and for a short distance on the southern side, where the portico projects to the 
west of the cella. 
I. Tur CARYATIDS 


(PLares XX XVIII, XXXIX) 


The entablature of the southwest porch is supported, not by columns, but by draped female 
figures which have usually been called caryatids 1 in modern times, though in the building 
inscription of the Erechtheum (p. 290) they are designated simply as maidens (xépat). 
These six figures are at once architectural members and works of sculpture, and naturally 
the fact that they were to be architectural members influenced and limited the sculptor in 
his choice of forms and attitudes. 

In order to produce as nearly as possible the effect of columns, that is, of virtually 


1 Pausanias (III, 10, 7 and IV, 16, 9) mentions dances of the maidens of Caryae (Caryatids) in the worship of 
Artemis. Pliny (N. H. XXXVI, 23) mentions among works of Praxiteles Maenads, Thyiads, and Caryatids, from 
which it would seem that Caryatids were dancers. Athenaeus (VI, 241 e) quotes from Lynceus, a writer of the fourth 
century B.c., a story of a banquet held in a room the roof of which was so unsafe that one of the banqueters said “a 
man has to feast here holding up his left hand as Caryatids do.”” Apparently, then, the word Caryatid designated in 
the fourth century a female figure holding up her left hand to support something above her. Perhaps the first such 
figures to which the name was applied were represented in the attitude of dancers. Vitruvius (I, 1, 5) says that Carya, 
a Peloponnesian town, sided with the Persians against Greece and was severely punished by the Greeks after the Per- 
sians were defeated. The men of Carya were killed, and the women enslaved. In their slavery they were forced to 
bear burdens and perform menial tasks without laying off their matronal costumes. The architects of the time gave 
the name Caryatides (women of Carya) to statues of these women so placed as to support a weight, in order that 
the wrong-doing of the inhabitants of Carya might not be forgotten. Vitruvius doubtless had some (perhaps misunder- 
stood) Greek authority for this tale; but there is no indication that the word Caryatid was in general use in Greece 
to designate female figures employed as supports in architecture. On this story of Vitruvius, and on the use of the 
word Caryatid in general, see Blomfield, ‘Some Remarks on the Caryatides of Ancient Architecture,’ Museum Criticum, 
II, 1826, pp. 400-402; C. A. Boéttiger, ‘Ueber die sogenannten Caryatiden am Pandroseum in Athen und ueber den 
Missbrauch der Benennung Caryatiden,’ Amalthea, III, pp. 138-167 (both these writers reject the statement of Vit- 
ruvius as legendary); Wolters, Z. bild. Kunst, VI, 1895, pp. 36-44; Homolle, R. Arch., fifth series, V, 1917, pp. 1 ff., 
and B. C. H., XXIII, 1899, pp. 625 ff.; Bulle, Der Schéne Mensch, col. 298; Fiechter in Pauly-Wissowa, XX, cols. 
2247-2252; Pomtow, Jb. Arch. I., XX XV, 1920, pp. 113-128, especially p. 127. 


232 


THE SCULPTURES 233 


straight lines, at the ends of the porch, the maiden at each corner, as well as the one stand- 
ing behind her, was made to rest her weight chiefly upon the outer leg, which is, therefore, 
straight, while the other leg is slightly bent. In other words, the maidens at the west end 
stand with the right leg straight and the left leg bent, while at the east end the posture is 
reversed. Of the two remaining figures each has the posture of the figure at the end nearest 
which it stands (PLarrs XXXIII, 2, XXXIV, 4). This arrangement adds to the symmetry 
of the whole, while the easy pose of all the maidens, without making them less upright or 
vertical, gives them the appearance of supporting the entablature without effort, and thus 
produces an impression of strength.1 

The architect of the Erechtheum was not the first to employ female figures to support 
an architrave.* Such figures took the place of columns in two of the so-called treasuries at 
Delphi, those which were erected in the sacred precinct of Apollo by the Cnidians and the 
Siphnians,* both of which were built in the sixth century B.c. In these two instances the 
figures stood on high bases and must have produced somewhat the effect of votive statues. 
Their heads were surmounted by high calathi or baskets, higher in proportion to the total 
height of the statues with their bases than are the capitals of Doric or Ionic columns in 
proportion to the total height of the columns to which they belong. The attitude of these 
figures is that of the numerous contemporary votive statues which have been found at 
Athens, Delos, and elsewhere. They stand perfectly straight and rigid, the weight being 
borne equally by both legs, and each figure holds with one hand a corner of her gown. A 
caryatid figure found at Tralles and now in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constan- 
tinople,* which is evidently a replica of a figure at Cherchel,® displays the qualities of 
Greek sculpture at a time shortly before the middle of the fifth century B.c., and is clearly 
a copy of a work of that period. The face, the hair, and the drapery all show traces of 
archaism. Here the head is surmounted by a tall calathus; the left arm, which is now want- 
ing, was raised, undoubtedly so that the hand supported the weight that rested on the head, 
and the right hand holds a fold of the drapery. Closely related to this figure is another, 
which is preserved in three replicas, one at Mantua, one at Petrograd, and one at Venice.® 


1 On the esthetic qualities of the caryatids in relation to the effect of the porch as a whole, see K. Ronezewski, 
‘Die Karyatiden des Erechtheion; zur Frage iiber perspektivische Ausdrucksmittel,’ Arch. Anz., XX XVII, 1922, 
cols. 174-184. His article is in part a refutation of a theory advanced by the late Professor W. Malmberg (Ekskur- 
sionny Westnik Museja Alexandra III, 1915, pp. 57 ff.; in Russian) that the caryatids were made of different breadths 
for the purpose of increasing, through perspective, the general effect of the porch. Later investigation has shown that 
the cast in Moscow, upon which this theory was based, is defective. 

2 On the use of human figures as architectural supports, see Erwin Wurz, Plastische Dekoration des Stiitzwerkes 
in Baukunst und Kunstgewerbe des Altertums (Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes, 43), pp. 46 ff., especially pp. 56-59. 

3 The caryatids formerly called Cnidian are now ascribed to the Siphnians, and vice versa. See W. B. Dinsmoor, 
B.C. H., XXXVII, 1913, pp. 22-24. 

4 Maxime Collignon, Mon. Pzot, X, pls. II, II, pp. 13-29; H. Lechat, La sculpture attique avant Phidias, pp. 489 ff. 

6 Collignon, I. c., p. 15, fig. 3; Gauckler, Musée de Cherchel, pl. IV, pp. 98 ff. This figure was probably made toward 
the end of the first century B.c. 

6 Collignon, J. c., p. 24 (fig. 10), p. 25 (fig. 11), and p. 21 (fig. 7) respectively. The figures at the corners of a sar- 
cophagus from Salonica, now in the Louvre, are also closely related to the figures from Tralles and Cherchel; see 
Collignon, J. c., p. 15, Gauckler, Musée de Cherchel, p. 102. 


234 THE ERECHTHEUM 


It has been suggested that these are copies of a figure which served as the companion piece 
of the original from which the figures from Tralles and Cherchel are derived," but if that is 
the case, various details of the hair, face, and drapery have been modified by the copyist, 
and the motif of the left hand is radically changed, for the folds of the drapery curve 
uninterruptedly round the left thigh, showing that the hand did not hold the garment.’ 
These figures differ among themselves, and may, perhaps, not be derived from one original. 
At any rate, they produce a less archaic effect than the figures from Tralles and Cherchel, 
and are probably derived from an original (or originals) of a date not earlier than 450 B.c.? 
Their resemblance to the figures from Tralles and Cherchel is, however, so marked that 
they represent, not an original type, but a modification of the type of those figures.* There 
are, then, three groups of caryatids at present known to us dating from times before the 
erection of the Erechtheum: those at Delphi, of the sixth century, the type of about 
460 B.c., represented by the figures from Tralles and Cherchel, and what appears to be a 
modification of that type, made, apparently, in Attica about 450-440 B.c. In all the types 
earlier than the Erechtheum there is a tall calathus on the head of each figure.°® 

The originality of the caryatids of the Erechtheum is found in the reduction of the tall 
calathus to a simple cushion surmounted by a curved echinus decorated with an egg-and- 
dart moulding, which supports the square abacus, and in the more advanced and perfect 
treatment of the face and the drapery, to which should be added the variety and grace 
of pose. The hair, while treated with the mastery of the best Attic sculpture, still retains 
the general arrangement found in the earlier figures — a heavy, solid mass at the back,® 
with long locks falling over the shoulders in front. The motif of the hand holding the 
drapery is the same as appears in the caryatids of Delphi and Tralles, and also in the archaic 
figures found on the Acropolis at Athens, at Delos, and elsewhere.’ What, if anything, 
was held in the missing hands, we do not know. 


1 Furtwingler, Ueber Statuenkopieen im Altertum, pp. 55 f. 

2 A similar difference seems to exist between the figures from Tralles and Cherchel on the one hand and a second 
figure from Venice on the other, so far as I can judge from the photograph published by Collignon, l. c., p. 21, fig. 8. 

* Collignon, l.c., p. 24. Furtwingler, op. cit., pp. 55-56, regarded the original of all these figures (the one from 
Tralles was not known when he wrote) as a work of Agoracritus of Paros, which he dated somewhat after 450 B. c. 
His argument is ingenious, but not convincing, and the date at which he arrives is surely too late for the style of the 
figure from Tralles. 4 Cf. Bulle, Rém. Mitt., IX, 1894, p. 153. 

> The two figures in Constantinople (Gustave Mendel, Mus. imp. ott., Sculptures, I, Nos. 253, 254, pp. 586 ff., 
with one illustration) lack the head. Moreover, they do not seem to have been free standing supports. Their posture 
is one of considerable movement. Mendel ascribes the original of them to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the 
fourth century 8.c., the figures themselves to about the first century A.D. 

The caryatid in the Vatican (Braccio Nuovo, 5, Amelung, Catalog, pl. II) is a rather poor copy of the caryatid 
from the Erechtheum which is now in the British Museum. It is said to have been in the Palazzo Paganica, which 
was a part of the Palazzo Mattei, and to have been restored from models made by Thorvaldsen when it was put in 
its present place in 1824. It was tentatively suggested by Dodwell (Tour, I, p. 354) that this was the then missing 
statue behind the southeast corner figure. 

® This solid mass about doubles the thickness of the stone at this point (the neck), where it would otherwise be 
weak, thus greatly increasing the strength of the support. The arrangement of the hair is, however, traditional, 
something retained from earlier times, not an original device for strengthening the support. 

7 The preservation of this motif in the caryatids of the Erechtheum tempts one to see a hint of some connection 
between them and the archaic figures found on the Acropolis, as if the archaic figures might have had some peculiar 


THE SCULPTURES 2395 


The six caryatids of the Erechtheum, while virtually identical in their general lines and 
chief features, are by no means identical in details.!. The one which has suffered least from 
exposure,” and which seems to have been originally the best, is the second from the west 
end.’ The surface of this figure is comparatively well preserved, though the hands are gone, 


Fiaure 145. PORCH OF THE MAIDENS: (A), SOUTHWEST CORNER FROM NORTHWEST. 
(B), SOUTHEAST CORNER FROM NORTHEAST 


the face is much battered, the middle parts of the locks of hair — between the ends that 
lie on the breast and shoulders and their junction with the head — are broken away, and 


significance in connection with the cult for which the Erechtheum (or, more especially, the southwest porch) was 
erected. Possibly the caryatids were intended to serve in a manner as substitutes for the lost and ruined archaic 
statues. Beulé, II, p. 254, suggested that the caryatids represented the Arrephori, young girls who annually carried 
on their heads some object to the temple of Aphrodite in the Gardens and brought another back to the Erechtheum 
(Paus. I, 27, 3), and that the architrave replaced their mysterious burden. This idea has been taken up independently 
by Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 27, and further elaborated by Elderkin, Problems in Periclean Buildings, pp. 13-18. 

1 On these differences see Ch. I, p. 111 f. and also Lechat, La sculpture attique avant Phidias, pp. 498 ff.; figs. 47-49. 

2 The figure north of the east corner is so much restored that it is now very largely modern work; see below, 
Ch. V, pp. 567, 578. 

3 This figure was removed by Lord Elgin and is now in the British Museum. Its place on the porch was long 
occupied by a terra-cotta copy, which was replaced in 1912 by a copy made of Portland cement. 


236 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the edges of the folds of the drapery are injured in many places. <A detailed descrip- 
tion is rendered unnecessary by the illustrations (PLares XX XVIII, XXXIX; Figs. 
145-149). 

An elaborate discussion of the general proportions of these figures, with a view to de- 
termining their position in the history of Greek art, can be of little value. We are reason- 
ably sure that they were carved at Athens, and the inscription of 409 B.c. informs us that 
they were already in place in that year, inasmuch as the “ceiling blocks over the maidens” 
are mentioned (Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 85, 86). How long before that date the figures 
were made we do not know, since we do not know exactly when the building was begun, or 
how long the work was carried on without interruption. The general proportions of the 
figures differ little from those of other Attic works of the latter part of the fifth century.* 
Nor are the proportions of the heads such as to indicate that these figures are not the work 
of Attic artists. To be sure, the eyes are relatively somewhat nearer together than those of 
certain other heads, and the cheeks and jaw are very evenly rounded, showing less of the 
osseous structure than is sometimes apparent,’ but these facts certainly do not suffice to 
invalidate the natural presumption that the figures are Attic work.* The effect produced 
by the faces was undoubtedly somewhat different when the hair, now broken away, served 
as a complete frame at each side. The whole head, including the hair, would then appear 
wider, and the face itself narrower. 

1 For a discussion of these questions, see Ch. V, pp. 452 ff. 

2 Even if the proportions were peculiar, the fact that the figures were designed as architectural members would 
tend to invalidate any arguments based on comparison of them with the proportions of other statues. 

3 These statements are true of the caryatid in the British Museum. The others have not been measured (in part 
because they are less well preserved), but there is no noticeable difference between the six caryatids in these par- 
ticulars. 

4 Few female heads are available for comparison. The following figures, taken from August Kalkmann’s work, 
Die Proportionen des Gesichts in der griechischen Kunst (63tes Berl. Winckelmannsprogramm), 1898, pp. 110, 111, 
give proportions of the heads of the caryatid in London and of five Roman copies of Greek heads of the fifth and 
fourth centuries. To these I have added the corresponding proportions (from measurements of the cast in the Mu- 
seum of Fine Arts in Boston) of the head from the Heraeum near Argos (The Argive Heraeum, Vol. I, frontispiece, 
pl. XXXVI, pp. 189-191), an undoubted original of a date not very far removed from that of the Erechtheum. It 


will be noticed that while some of the proportions of our head agree pretty closely with those of the head from the 
Heraeum, others do not. 


Height from eye to 4 Distance between outer corners 
chin = 100 Height of face = 200 of eyes = 100 
Distance be- Distance be- 
tween outer | Distance be-| tween outer | Distance Eye to chin | Height of Distance 
corners of tween ears corners of | between ears face between ears 
the eyes the eyes 
Caryatid in the British Museum ....... 82.8 124.6 106.5 160.2 120.7 191.1 157.0 
Amazon, Capitoline type ............. 80.6 114.9 104.4 148.8 124.0 191.5 142.5 
Amazon, “Berlin type wedi sence cet ee 79.4 116.9 102.6 151.0 125.9 194.9 147.2 
Head in Bologna (Athena Lemnia) .... 85.0 120.0 108.5 153-2 117.6 184.3 141.2 
irene, Munich ..5,..0261 eee eee 82.1 121.9 100.0 148.5 121.8 200.0 148.5 
Cnidian Aphrodite (Vatican) ......... 79.6 122.4 98.7 151.9 125.6 202.6 153.8 
Head from the Heraeum ............. 85.6 121.6 114.4 162.7 116.8 174.7 142.1 


Figure 147. HEAD OF CARYATID AT SOUTHWEST 
CORNER. PLATE XXXIX, 1, 2, 3 


Ficure 148. HEAD OF CARYATID AT SOUTHEAST 
CORNER. PLATE XXXIX, 7, 8, 9. 


[ 237 ] 


238 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Even in their present condition these caryatids are impressive and beautiful. It is 
natural and fitting that they have served since the fifth century B.c. as models for figures 
of this class. 

Bruno Schroeder! calls attention to the points of resemblance between these figures 
and several others 2 which he regards as works of Alcamenes, the pupil of Phidias, and 
suggests that Aleamenes may well be the author of the sculptures of the Erechtheum. That 


Figure 149. HEAD OF CARYATID WEST OF 
SOUTHEAST CORNER. 


PLATE XXXIx, 4, 5, 6 


this is possible can hardly be denied, but our knowledge of the differences between the styles 
of the individual sculptors of the latter part of the fifth century is not sufficient to warrant 
us in ascribing these sculptures with confidence to any one of them.’ Indeed, Schroe- 
der’s references to the opinions of other scholars show that the names of Agoracritus, Ce- 
phisodotus, and Strongylion have all been mentioned in connection with the Erechtheum. 


1 Alkamenes-Studven (79tes Berl. Winckelmannsprogramm), 1921. Hans Schrader, Phidias, pp. 185, 195-203, also 
includes the Maidens among the works which he ascribes to Aleamenes. 

® Such are the Spitzhéver threefold Hecate in the Berlin Museum (Inv. 1751), the so-called Procne in the Meroe 
olis Museum (Casson, Catalogue, pp. 257 ff.), and a draped statue from Pergamon, now in Berlin (Pergamon, VII, 
1, Die Skulpturen, pls. VI, VII, pp. 25 ff.). 

3 The incompleteness of our knowledge is made plain by the instance of Paeonius of Mende. By chance his 
statue of Victory at Olympia is preserved and is identified by its inscription and by the mention of Pausanias. This 
admirable work has made him, for us, one of the famous sculptors of his time. But Paeonius is not mentioned in all 
extant ancient literature, except in Pausanias’ description of Olympia, and there he is said to be the sculptor of the 
figures in the eastern pediment of the temple of Zeus, those in the western pediment being ascribed to Aleamenes. The 


THE SCULPTURES 239 


Il. THe Frieze 
(Puates XL-XLVI) 


The frieze was different in technique from any other known Greek frieze;+ for it con- 
sisted, not of slabs of marble or other stone carved with figures, but of smooth blocks of 
very dark Eleusinian limestone, upon which figures of white marble were fastened by means 
of iron dowels.” The use of the dark stone made it unnecessary to color the background 
with paint, and there may have been some economy of material, and possibly also of labor, 
in having the figures carved separately from relatively small pieces of marble; but the 
general effect of the finished frieze was probably not very different from that of other 


Figure 150. ARCHITRAVE, FRIEZE, AND CORNICE: BRITISH MUSEUM 


friezes, the backgrounds of which were painted. The fact that the figures were carved 
separately has resulted in the loss of so many of them and the preservation of the rest in so 
fragmentary a condition, that it is now impossible to form an accurate judgment concerning 
the beauty of the work, or even to determine with certainty the subject or subjects repre- 
sented. 

The height of the blocks of Eleusinian stone which formed the frieze about the cella is 
0.617 m., that of the frieze of the North Portico 0.683 m. The total length of the frieze of 


latter ascription is now almost universally rejected, and the former is accepted, if at all, only with the gravest doubts. 
Evidently Paeonius was not a famous sculptor in ancient times, for in that case his name would be mentioned by other 
writers. Yet his Victory is now universally, and justly, admired. Whether other equally good sculptors may be totally 
unknown to us because their names are not mentioned in the extant remains of ancient literature is quite beyond our 
power to determine. 

1 The figures of gold on the pedestal of the statue of Zeus at Olympia (Pausanias, V, 11, 8) must have been 
made separately and fastened to the background; but such application of metal to a background of less valuable 
material is hardly comparable to the application of one kind of stone upon another. 

2 In general each figure was fastened by a single dowel; but when two persons, or a person with accessories, or a 
team of horses with chariot and driver, were carved from one piece of marble, only one dowel was used for the whole. 
The dowels had the shape represented in Figure 120, p. 195. The positions of the dowel holes in the blocks of the 
background are shown on Puates III, IV, V, VI, X XI, and XLVI. 


240 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the cella was less than the entire circuit of the building, because the roof of the North 
Portico cut off part of it. Moreover, when the western end of the building was restored in 
Roman times, plain ! blocks of Eleusinian stone, without attached figures, were used to form 
the western frieze. Whether the western frieze was always plain, or had been adorned with 
figures before the restoration, is no longer to be determined with certainty, but the greater 
width of the Greek architrave suggests the presence here, as elsewhere, of a sculptured 
frieze; but even if figures once existed here, they must have been destroyed in ancient 
times, and there is no probability that any of the surviving fragments belong to figures of 
the western frieze. It may, therefore, be assumed that all the known fragments of figures 
from the frieze of the cella were once on the eastern, the southern, or the northern side. The 
total length of the frieze on these three sides was about 49 m. But the original position of 
the extant fragments can, perhaps, be even more closely limited. The drawings by Dalton, 
Stuart, and Pars show the building as it was about the middle of the eighteenth century 
(Puarss L, LI). At that time the dark blocks of the original Greek frieze were in position 
only across the eastern end and for a short distance along the southern side. No figures 
were then in place on these blocks, but it is perhaps probable, though by no means certain, 
that the last figures to be detached, and therefore the last to be destroyed, were those which 
once adorned the blocks which remained longest on the building.? In other words, there is 
some slight probability that most of the extant fragments of the figures from the frieze of 
the cella belong to the eastern front and the eastern part of the southern side; to a total 
length, that is to say, of about 14 m., though it is, of course, quite possible that fragments 
from other parts of the frieze may have escaped destruction.* 


1 They are old statue bases, with the tops turned toward the interior of the building (see Ch. I, p. 73). These 
tops show the foot marks of the statues which once stood on them (Fig. 207), but the outer surfaces are plain (PLATE 
XX XIII, 3). 

2 There is no reliable record of the places in which most of the fragments were found. Rangabé (R. Arch. II, 1, 
1845, p. 323) says that nine were discovered in 1844, when the vault in the North Portico was removed; but he only 
describes two of these pieces in detail: ‘‘l’un représente une femme debout, vétue d’une tunique et d’un manteau qui 
lui tombe de |’épaule gauche, et laisse le bras droit 4 nu; la main s’appuie avec grace sur le cété. L’autre fragment 
représente également une femme debout; devant elle une autre femme, un genou 4 terre, se penche en avant, et a 
lair d’examiner quelque chose qui se trouverait devant elle.’”’ The former fragment is still unidentified, but the latter 
appears to be the lower part of 66 (p. 259), wrongly described as composed of two women; the other group with a 
kneeling figure (49, p. 256) had been known for some time and published in 1837 in the ’E@nuepis ’Apxatodoyexy. Still 
other fragments are known to have been found in the walls between the nave and aisles of the church, and beneath the 
Christian pavement (Bétticher, Untersuchungen, pp. 193 f.), but they do not appear to have been described and cannot 
now be identified. These latter fragments very probably came from the side walls, which lost their architrave — at 
least in part, — and consequently their frieze, when the church was built (p. 502). The fragments in the vault of the 
North Portico might have come from any part of the building, if the vault was built for the powder magazine (p. 532). 
If, however, the vault belonged to the Turkish house and was constructed about the time when the North Door 
was closed with blocks of dark stone (pp. 523 f.) which almost certainly came from the frieze of the side walls, it is 
quite possible that these fragments had the same source. The fragments found in the débris around the building, 
however, may very well have belonged on those blocks of the frieze which remained longest in place. 

’ In the inscription (Ch. IV, Inscription XIT]I, col. 1, ll. 31-34), payment for the removal of scaffolding from 
the north wall, after the figures have been fastened to the frieze, in the seventh prytany of the year 408-407 B. c., is 
recorded. From this Carl Robert (Hermes, XXV, 1890, pp. 431 ff.) concludes that the sculpture for which 3315 
drachmas were paid in the same prytany was on the north side of the building. He also identifies with fragment 
106 (PLuaTE XLVI), the figures described in lines 7-9 of the inscription (a wagon, a youth, and two horses which are 


THE SCULPTURES 241 


The entire length of the frieze of the North Portico was about 25 m., and about 21 m. 
of the dark blocks now exist. Those blocks are now, with the exception of a few fragments, 
secured in their proper places on the building.! 

The total number of extant fragments of figures (reckoning as one those which cer- 
tainly belong together) is 112, including the fragments of horses, and omitting the doubtful 
fragments described in the Appendix (pp. 270 ff.), but the number of figures represented by 
the fragments is probably somewhat less. Since the frieze of the North Portico is higher 
than that of the cella, the fragments are to be assigned to one or the other in accordance 
with the size of the figures to which they originally belonged. This size can, however, be 
determined only by calculation based upon the proportions of the human figure, or other 
objects represented, and measurements of the fragments. The difference in the height of 
the blocks on which the figures were fastened is only 0.066 m. (0.683 m.—0.617 m.), and 
many of the fragments are so small that it is impossible to be quite certain whether they 
belong to figures of larger or smaller size. Moreover, since some of the figures were seated, 
while others were erect, there would certainly be in each division of the frieze some variety 
of proportions, even if all the figures represented adult human beings, which was not the 
case.” Nevertheless, careful measurement of the fragments has made it possible to assign 
almost all of them with greater or less probability to one frieze or the other, the degree 
of probability depending upon the size, preservation, and form of the fragments.*? The 


being harnessed). If his conclusion and identification are correct, we cannot assume that all the fragments now 
existing are from the blocks which were still in place in the eighteenth century. However, as Frickenhaus (cited by 
Pallat, A. J. A., XVI, 1912, p. 188, note) has observed, the part of the inscription which relates to the szoupyol is 
not entirely preserved. It is, therefore, possible that scaffolding was removed from other parts of the building in that 
same prytany, and in that case lines 7—9 of the inscription do not necessarily refer to the frieze of the north side of 
the building. See Ch. IV, Commentary, pp. 413 ff. 

1 The place of the missing blocks is supplied by blocks of bluish ‘‘upper Pentelic”’ marble. 

2 See Ch. IV, Inscription XVII, col. 1, 1. 21, 4 waits, and col. 1, 1. 2, veavioxov. If, as is almost certain, some fig- 
ures represented deities, further variety of proportions would naturally result. 

3 Dr. Ludwig Pallat (Ant. Denk., Il, pls. 31-34, with accompanying text) published in 1899 measured draw- 
ings of the dark blocks and the projecting top of the architrave upon which they rest, and photographs of the 95 (by 
his numbering 93) fragments of figures which he had succeeded in identifying. He described each fragment in detail, 
giving exact measurements, and stating, as accurately as the circumstances permit, the height above the ground line 
of every dowel hole found in the fragments. His work is very careful and thorough, and I have accepted his results, 
with certain reservations and corrections which are stated below. 

The earliest publication of the figures was by A. R. Rangabé in the ’E¢nyepis ’Apxatodoyixy, 1837, pp. 68-70, 
figs. 33-49. It comprised brief descriptions of five pieces and rather poor reproductions of seventeen, apparently all 
which had then been identified. In 1842 Rangabé published in his Antiquités helléniques, I, p. 73, pls. ILI, IV, figs. 
61-85, a brief account, with illustrations, of twenty-five fragments, omitting one (no. 33) of those previously repro- 
duced in the ’E¢yyepis. Seventeen of these fragments (seven of those in the "E¢nuepis) were more fully described in 
the Annali dell’ Instituto, XV, 1843, pp. 310-312 by Ludwig Stephani, who omitted the other pieces because he had 
been unable to find them during his stay in Athens. Sixteen fragments were also published by Ph. Le Bas in his 
Voyage archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure, Monuments figurés, pls. 15-17 (see also the edition by 8. Reinach, 
Bibliotheque des Monuments figurés, 1, pp. 56, 57). Some of the fragments reproduced in these early publications can- 
not now be identified with certainty; see below p. 276. The frieze has, of course, been briefly mentioned or discussed 
in a considerable number of books of more general content, such as Die Museen Athens (Milchhofer), Histoire de la 
sculpture grecque (Collignon), Geschichte der griechischen Plastik (Overbeck), Pausanias (Frazer’s notes in Vol. II), ete. 

Rather poor drawings of 46 fragments were published by Richard Schoene (Griechische Reliefs, pls. I-IV, pp.1 ff.). 
This was the first serious attempt to publish this frieze. The fragments published by Schoene and Overbeck are repro- 


242 THE ERECHTHEUM 


fragments ascribed to the North Portico are parts of about 56 different figures, including 
three chariots with galloping horses,! each of which was fastened to the background by a 
single dowel.? In the existing dark blocks of the frieze of this porch (about 21 m. in length) 
there are 59 dowel holes (PLATE XLVI), not including several small round holes which may 
have served for fastening attributes, and disregarding also a few holes in fragments which 
cannot be placed (PLarE XLVI). In the entire frieze of the porch there were, then, prob- 
ably about 70 dowel holes,? corresponding to about 70 figures. Apparently, then, frag- 
ments of much more than half the figures of the frieze of the North Portico are preserved. 
The existing fragments of the frieze of the cella represent about 46 figures, in addition to 
a team of horses, which must certainly have occupied more space than other figures. Now 
if these figures were all on the blocks of the frieze which were in place in the eighteenth 
century, we have fragments of about three figures to the running metre (46+ 14 = 3.29), 
very close to the average in the frieze of the North Portico when it was complete. In that 
case, all, or nearly all, the figures of this part of the frieze would be partly preserved. 
Even if the extant fragments are ascribed impartially to the southern, the eastern, and 
the northern sides of the building, nearly one figure in three still exists in part. 

Under these circumstances it would seem that, with the aid of the dowel holes in the 
backs of the fragments of the figures and in the blocks of the background,‘ many of the frag- 
ments could be assigned to their proper places and the design could be in great measure 
reconstructed with perfect certainty. This, however, is not the case. Some few fragments, 
the edges of which fit more or less perfectly, were put together by Pallat and those who 
studied the frieze before him, and I was unable to obtain further results by placing the 
fragments next one another, though I tried all possible combinations. I found no further 
exact joints, and even probable arrangements failed to present themselves. Nor did the 
attempt to fix the position of the figures by means of corresponding dowel holes in the 
fragments and the blocks lead to any definite results. As a general rule, the dowel holes in 
duced by 8. Reinach, Répertoire de reliefs grecs et romains, I, pls. 9-12. Ludwig von Sybel (Ath. Mitt., V, 1880, p. 228, 
and Katalog der Skulpturen von Athen, 1881, under No. 5686) added 20 to Schoene’s list of fragments, but published 
no further drawings. See also Baumeister’s Denkmdler des klassischen Altertums, I, pp. 489, 490, and Brunn-Bruck- 
mann, Denkmdiler griechischer und rémischer Skulptur, pls. XX XI-X XXIII. Further discussions of the frieze are by 
Carl Robert (Hermes, XXV, pp. 431 ff.), K. Weissmann (Beitrdage zur Erklérung und Beurteilung griechischer Kunstwerke, 
1903, pp. 31-50; not important), and Ludwig Pallat (A. J. A., XVI, 1912, pp. 175-202). The last mentioned article 
contains a somewhat detailed discussion of the dowel holes in the dark blocks and the marble fragments, with an at- 
tempt to reconstruct, by the use of all the evidence at our disposal, some of the scenes of the frieze, and some sugges- 
tions for the interpretation of the whole. This is the most serious attempt at interpretation that has been made. 

The latest discussion of the frieze is by Stanley Casson in the Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, Vol. Il (Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1921), pp. 19-27 and 174-218, with a few illustrations. On pages 19-27 is a general discus- 


sion of the frieze, on pages 174-218 a description of each fragment, with some discussion and full bibliographical 
references. 

1 See Pallat, A. J. A., XVI, 1912, pp. 175, 177, 178. 

2 See above, p. 239, note 2. 

* 21:59 = 25:70. The average distance between the dowel holes is 0.356 m., and the average number of holes 
per metre is 2.81. 

* The blocks of the eastern front of the East Portico are shown on PLats XX]; the existing blocks of the southern 
side on Piates VI and XLVI. 


THE SCULPTURES 243 


the figures are smaller than those in the blocks of the background; and exact correspondence 
in measurements is, therefore, not to be expected. Moreover, since the dowels were fixed 
in the holes with lead, the holes were necessarily larger than the dowels, and the dowels 
were probably not always exactly in the middle of the holes. A hole in the Eleusinian stone 
might, therefore, be a centimetre, or possibly even more, higher or lower than the corre- 
sponding hole in a marble figure; and, since all the holes are, roughly speaking, in the middle 
third of the blocks,’ many of them are at nearly the same height. In the blocks of Eleu- 
sinian stone (not including one or two fragments) there are 92 dowel holes, besides eleven 
small holes already mentioned. Of the 112 fragments? of figures only about 45 have 
dowel holes,* and none of these holes corresponds so exactly with any hole in the blocks as 
to determine with perfect certainty the position of the figure. The fragments which con- 
tain no dowel holes may have had their places anywhere, except where there are dowel 
holes in the Eleusinian stone, subject, of course, to the limitation that the lower part of a 
figure cannot go on the upper part of a block or vice versa. 

The top of the architrave below the blocks of Eleusinian stone shows by its weathering 
where it was always exposed and where it was protected by the projecting figures of the 
frieze. There are also in the top of the architrave numerous small round holes, and similar 
holes, some of which contain remains of iron pins or plugs and of lead, are found in a few 
of the fragments of sculpture. But some of the holes in the top of the architrave are out- 
side of the area protected from the weather, and were therefore not covered by the figures 
of the frieze. Perhaps attributes (or, possibly, projecting points to prevent birds from 
alighting) may have been fastened in these holes. At any rate, the lines of weathering and 
the small holes must be taken into account in any proposed reconstruction of the frieze. 

Although attempts to reconstruct the design of the frieze by direct juxtaposition of the 
fragments and by means of corresponding dowel holes in the fragments of sculpture and the 
blocks of the background were unsuccessful, nevertheless some results may be obtained in 
a somewhat less direct way by examination of the fragments and the dowel holes. The 
fragments show that some of the persons represented were seated, others standing, others 
in motion, and others in various atiitudes. Among the fragments far more than half are 
from female figures, and persons engaged in action were apparently very few in comparison 
with those who were either seated or standing quietly.® As Pallat observes, seated and 

1 The lowest is 0.175 m. from the bottom (except that the hole in the back of fragment 98 is only 0.16 m. from the 
original under surface), and nearly all are at a height between 0.22 m. and 0.45 m. 

2 There are more than 112, if any of the doubtful fragments belong to the frieze. 

3 In a few cases there is, just where the stone is broken, something that looks like a cutting and may be the 
remains of a dowel hole. The number of holes cannot, therefore, be given with absolute certainty. 

4 See Hill, quoted by Pallat, A. J. A., XVI, 1912, p. 195, note, and compare PLares XXI, XLVI; Fig. 11. 

5 The following statistics are given by Pallat, A. J. A., XVI, 1912, pp. 182 ff., 191 ff.: Frieze of the cella: stand- 
ing or quietly walking figures, 15 (now 17); moving, 7 (now 8); seated, 10 (now 11); in various attitudes, 5; male, 
13 (now 14); female, 24 (now 28). Frieze of the North Portico: standing, 22; quietly walking, 3 (now 4); running, 


6; seated, 9 (now 10); engaged in some action, 4; male, 5; female, 42 (now 44). To these the horses and some small 
fragments are to be added. 


244 THE ERECHTHEUM 


quietly standing figures are likely to be divine or heroic spectators of whatever action is 
represented, if one may reason from the analogy of the friezes of the Parthenon, the “The- 
seum,” and the temple of Athena Nike. The same analogy lends some slight additional 
probability to the assumption (p. 240) that most of the fragments of the frieze of the cella, 
so many of which belong to quietly standing or seated figures, are derived from the eastern 
front. On the North Portico, on one side at least, and probably on two sides, the frieze 
must, apparently, have contained groups of divine or heroic spectators of some action or 
actions, and by far the greater number of these superhuman beings must have been female. 

These results of the examination of the fragments of the figures and the dowel holes in 
the blocks of the background may be accepted as correct and virtually certain. They give 
us some idea of the general appearance of the frieze, the figures of which seem to have been 
arranged in separate groups or scenes, rather than in one continuous representation. Some 
division of scenes is inevitable in view of the different heights of the frieze of the cella and 
that of the North Portico, while the shape of the latter, with its three sides ' nearly equal 
(of which the eastern side is really the most important and conspicuous, while the northern 
side is architecturally the front of the porch), lends itself readily to the representation of 
three scenes, and any continuous representation on the walls of the cella would necessarily 
be unsymmetrical, since the frieze on the northern wall was much shorter than that on the 
southern (p. 240). 

The subjects of the groups have not as yet been determined with certainty. Those 
who have tried to determine them have generally assumed that scenes connected with 
Erechtheus and his cult were represented; and this is, indeed, probable; but since the sub- 
jects of the sculptured adornment of Greek temples were not always directly connected 
with the deity or hero to whom any given temple was dedicated,? and since this particular 
temple was built for Athena as well as for Erechtheus, the connection of the frieze with 
Erechtheus is not absolutely certain.’ 


1 The single block on the fourth side, where the porch projects to the west of the cella, would hardly afford space 
for an independent scene. 

? See Tarbell and Bates, A. J. A., First Series, VIIJ, 1893, pp. 18 ff. 

* Ingenious and carefully considered attempts to determine what scenes were represented, and even to recon- 
struct to some extent individual scenes, have led to results which may be correct, but are not certain. Pallat, A. J. A., 
XVI, 1912, p. 184, observes that in the frieze of the eastern front of the temple the second hole in the fourth block 
(counting from the left) is at the same height from the ground line (ca. 0.27 m.) as the dowel hole in the back of the 
horse, 106 (PLarr XLVI; museum number 1235), if the legs of the horse be restored, and is at a considerable distance 
from the holes to right and left. These facts indicate that a chariot with its horses was represented at this point. 
From this and other similar indications, Pallat concludes that the scene represented here, over the entrance to the 
eastern cella, was the harnessing by Erechtheus, under the direction of Athena, of the first four-horse chariot. Be- 
sides the persons engaged in this action, the eastern frieze contained, according to Pallat, only spectators, messengers, 
etc. But the low hole in the sixth block, at the right, may indicate the presence of another horse, which seems to 
destroy the symmetry of the composition and is hard to bring into connection with the proposed scene. Pallat also, 
on the ground of the arrangement of the dowel holes and the existence of a large number of female figures, thinks 
that on the eastern (which was the most important and conspicuous) side of the North Portico the birth of Erich- 
thonius was represented, and he suggests for the northern front of the porch Athena surprising the daughters of Cecrops 
at the opening of the chest in which Erichthonius was hidden. Some of the fragments of the figures he identifies 


THE SCULPTURES 245 


On account of the fragmentary condition of the figures, nearly all attributes, which 
might aid in the identification of persons and thereby in the interpretation of scenes, have 
been lost. Two fragments (11, PLars XL, museum number 1237, and 84, PLarn XLIV, 
museum number 1075) are from figures, or groups, which were evidently much alike. Each 
represented a seated woman holding a nude boy in her lap, and one turns towards the right, 
the other towards the left. It is tempting to try to reconstruct a group in which these two 
shall be symmetrically arranged, but, unfortunately, their proportions are not the same, 
and in all probability the larger (11) belongs to the frieze of the North Portico, the other to 
that of the cella. One or both might readily find a place in scenes from the myth of Erech- 
theus or that of Erichthonius. The fragment 18 (PLarze XLI, museum number 1239) be- 
longs to a female figure seated on a somewhat elaborate chair, the arm of which ends in a 
lion’s head and is supported by a sphinx. The interpretation of this figure as Athena is, 
however, hardly to be accepted as certain. Part of the seat for the figure in the fragment 73 
(PLare XLIV, museum number 2818) projects in relief, and this has not as yet been satis- 
factorily explained. Part of the trunk of a tree is visible at the right of the fragment 78 
(PLateE XLIV, museum number 1077). The object held in the lap of the figure in the frag- 
ment 83 (PLatse XLIV, museum number 1293) is usually called an omphalos, but the desig- 
nation is far from satisfactory. With the male figure in the fragment 92 (PLaTE XLV, 
museum number 1196) is an object which Pallat explains as parts of a mast and spar with 
a sail, and this explanation may be correct, though so little of the object (or objects) is 
preserved that certainty is hardly to be attained. Unfortunately none of these objects or 
attributes is of much service in the interpretation of the frieze. 

The design for the entire frieze was probably the work of one artist, and, though we can 
form no accurate judgment of his ability in the composition of groups and the arrangement 
of figures, some of the fragments are sufficiently well preserved to show that in designing 
individual figures, in arranging the folds of drapery, and in portraying variety of attitude 
he exhibited no mean powers. The positions of the dowel holes in the background show 
that the figures were not so close together as are those of the frieze of the Parthenon, though 
their arrangement is far from being as loose as that seen in the Amazon frieze of the Mauso- 
leum. The space was well filled without overcrowding. In the treatment of drapery this 
frieze occupies a middle position between the frieze of the Parthenon and the balustrade of 
the temple of Athena Nike. Good examples are the fragments 13 (PLaTE XL, museum 


tentatively with persons who would naturally be present at these events. On the western side of the porch he thinks 
a chariot race of four-horse chariots was represented. 

In Hermes, XXV, 1890, pp. 431-445, Carl Robert constructs, from the words of the inscription, XVII, col. 1, 
ll. 1-17, a scene representing the departure of Erechtheus for his combat with Eumolpus, and from XVI, col. 1, ll. 2-9, 
he deduces a scene relating to the giving of an oracle. The first of these scenes he thinks was on the northern side of 
the East Cella, the second on the North Portico. Somewhat less positive results were obtained through study of the in- 
scription by Bergk, Z. Alterthumswissenschaft, 1845, pp. 947 f. (quoted by Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen Kiinstler, 
I, p. 250). Weissmann’s (see p. 242) interpretation is founded in great part on Schoene’s imperfect publication of the 
fragments. Of these attempts at interpretation, that of Pallat is by far the most carefully worked out and the most 
nearly convincing. 


246 THE ERECHTHEUM 


number 1072), 77 (PLATE XLIV, museum number 1071), 78 (PLaTE XLIV, museum num- 
ber 1077), and 84 (PLaTs XLIV, museum number 1075). The surface of the marble has 
suffered greatly from time and exposure, but even now it is evident that the execution was 
uneven. The inscriptions (XVI, col.1, ll. 2-9; XVII, col. 1, ll. 1-22) record payments made 
to various artisans for carving the figures at the rate of 60 drachmas for each figure of the 
usual size. Evidently the artisans were not all of equal ability, but all possessed consider- 
able skill and all worked with ease and assurance. As a whole, the frieze was, apparently, 
inferior in dignity of conception and richness of design to the frieze of the Parthenon and by 
no means equal to the balustrade of the temple of Athena Nike in brilliancy of execution. 
As a unique departure from the usual technique it was, and is, interesting, but the fact that 
the experiment was not repeated may indicate that it was not regarded as a perfect success. 
Nevertheless, so far as we can judge from the extant fragments, the frieze was well designed 
and executed, and formed no unworthy part of the adornment of the most ornate structure 
on the Acropolis of Athens. 


DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENTS OF THE FRIEZE! 


1. (No. 2822; Pallat 31,1.) H. 0.26 m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.14 m. Part of thigh and ad- 
jacent portions of a standing figure, turned to the left (her right), draped with a himation which is 
held in folds at the front. The flat surface at the back is dressed with a point and chisel, and contains 
only a few unworked holes. The width at the bottom is 0.06 m., at the top 0.07 m. A dowel hole, 
neatly wrought with a chisel (length 0.04 m.; breadth 0.018 m.; depth 0.036 m.), is 0.17 m. from the 
lower edge (that is, about 0.33 m. from the original ground line). If the dowel was vertical, the figure 
would stand nearly erect. The work on the front is facile, vigorous, and not especially fine. Strong 
effects of shadow seem to be intended. 


1 This description is a translation of Pallat’s description, with various changes and additions. For many of 
these I am indebted to Dr. James M. Paton, others are derived from Mr. Casson’s Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, 
others from Dr. Pallat’s article in the American Journal of Archaeology, still others are due to the kindness of Dr. 
Bert H. Hill and Dr. Carl W. Blegen. My thanks are due to Dr. Pallat and the German Archaeological Institute for 
the free use I have been allowed to make of Dr. Pallat’s work. I have examined and measured all the fragments. 

The following abbreviations are employed: H., height; Br., breadth; Th., thickness; (1., length; br., breadth; 
d., depth, in the description of dowel holes). 

No., the number given in the inventory of the Acropolis Museum, where all the fragments, with the few exceptions 
noted in the text, are preserved. 

Pallat, Dr. Ludwig Pallat’s publication in Antike Denkmdler, II, pls. 31-34, with accompanying text. 

A.J.A., Dr. Pallat’s article in the American Journal of Archaeology, XVI, 1912, pp. 175-202. 

Casson, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, Vol. II, by Stanley Casson. In this catalogue the fragments are des- 
ignated by their inventory numbers; reference to pages is, therefore, unnecessary, except when the introduction is 
cited. 

In his publication, Dr. Pallat assigns fragments 1-55 to the North Portico, and arranges them on his plates 31-32. 
To these he added fragment 56 in A. J. A. Fragments 57-61 and 112, not published by Pallat, seem to belong also 
to this porch. Fragments 62-96 are ascribed by Pallat in Antike Denkmédiler to the frieze of the cella, and are arranged 
on plates 33-34, Fragment 97 is assigned to the same series in A. J. A. Fragments 98-104 seem to belong also to the 
cella. The fragments of horses, 105-108, are grouped by Pallat on plate 34, and to these 109 was added in A. J. A. 
The order of Pallat’s arrangement is here followed as closely as possible, for his division of the figures between the 
cella and the North Portico is without doubt in most cases correct. 

With few exceptions the fragments are now mounted on plaster bases. This adds greatly to their beauty, but 
makes it impossible to examine the under (and in some cases the back) surface. 


THE SCULPTURES 247 


2. (No. 1290; Pallat 31,2.) H. 0.34 m.; Br. 0.17 m.; Th. 0.10m. Fragment, of two pieces put 
together — abdomen, right leg to below the knee, and a small bit of the left thigh, — of a female 
figure apparently moving towards the right,! as is shown by the drapery at the left. Her left knee 
may have been raised rather high. She wears a chiton which was girt about the waist. A small hole, 
bored up from below into the deep middle fold of the three that exist between the legs, seems to indi- 
cate that a small piece was once fastened on here. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel 
and exhibits slight unevennesses caused by lifting the chisel. 

3. (No. 1294; Pallat 31,3.) H.0.37m.; Br. 0.20 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Lower part — from about 
the waist down — of a female figure clad in a chiton girt at the waist; she is striding toward the 
right. The back is finely roughened. The lower surface has flaked off; in it is a hole (possibly 
modern) which contains lead. The surface has suffered much. Where the surface has broken away 
in the front are several small holes, seemingly due to the drill used in working the drapery. 

4. (No. 2825; Pallat 31, 4.) H. 0.33 m.; Br. 0.305m.; Th. 0.155 m. Upper part — from the 
neck to the middle of the thighs — of a female figure striding rapidly towards the left and forward. 
She wears a sleeved chiton girt at the waist. Her rapid forward move- 
ment has caused this to slip from her left shoulder to a point below 
the left breast. Over her extended right arm she has thrown her cloak, 
one end of which she was pulling up with her raised left hand over 
her shoulders, perhaps in fear. This part of the cloak is somewhat 
roughly wrought out from the back surface (Fig. 151). The end of a 
mass of hair is also visible here, indicating that the coiffure was like 
that of the ‘‘maidens”’ of the Erechtheum. The head was turned back 
towards the right. The back surface is dressed with two toothed 
chisels; that used in the upper part being the coarser of the two. 
There seem to be traces of previous use of the point. In the back, 
0.11 m. from the lower edge (i.e., about 0.36 m. from the original 
ground line) and 0.03-0.035 m. from the left edge (of the back), 
is a dowel hole entirely filled with iron and lead (1. 0.07 m.; br. Bigonn 161 en carent’ ae 
0.025 m.). The lead spreads over the edge of the hole. At the height BACK 
of this dowel hole, in the left hip, is a second hole, cut horizontally, 
which is 0.18 m. from the lowest corner of the figure and still contains much lead. This hole prob- 
ably served in attaching an attribute. The whole fragment is noticeably thick (0.135 m. at the 
bottom). The folds of the drapery are cut very deep in some places, for which purpose the drill was 
freely employed, and, for instance at the left hip, pretty roughly managed. On the other hand, the 
lines of the folds, especially where they lie close to the arm, breast, etc., are divided in almost ex- 
cessive detail by means of long-drawn, fine incisions and little grooves. 

Casson, p. 24, says this “is a very fine example of a winged Nike, a type which seems to have 
figured largely in contemporary sculpture and in the Erechtheium frieze in particular.” He calls 
this (p. 214) a “‘female winged figure.” He says ‘the traces of the wings consist of a groove behind 
the right shoulder and a base of the left wing on the left shoulder.”” The so-called base of the left 
wing seems rather to be a fragment of the drapery, and the groove behind the right shoulder is surely 
no sufficient ground for assuming that the figure is winged. Casson very properly calls attention 
(p. 25) to the resemblance in style and type between this fragment and 2, 26, 27, 28, 29, 58, 74, 76, 
which he calls collectively ‘‘Nike figure fragments,’”’ without offering any definite reason for that 
designation. Dr. Blegen writes: ‘‘ What Casson calls the base of the left wing is, I feel sure, part of the 
drapery. The himation hanging over the right arm was imagined as swinging down behind the back 


1 The words right and left are used with reference to the spectator, except when they define members of the body 
(e.g., right arm), in which case they are used with reference to the particular figure under discussion. 


248 THE ERECHTHEUM 


and then high up on the other side, presumably held in the left hand across the shoulder. On the 
figures of the Nike balustrade the base of the wing starts from the very top of the shoulder; the pro- 
jection on this fragment, however, rises not from the top of the shoulder, but from some distance 
down the back. The groove behind the right shoulder gives no evidence whatsoever for a wing. In 
the first place it is not in the right place for a wing, and in the second place it seems to me to show, 
if anything, that nothing was ever attached in this place. The groove, as Hill points out, was made to 
provide access for pouring lead about the dowel. Hill has examined the figure and agrees with the 
above.” Dr. Blegen writes further that Mr. Casson now concedes that there is no sure evidence for 
wings, though he still thinks the figure is of the Nike type and shows strong similarity to the figures 
of the Nike balustrade. 

5. (No. 1291; Pallat 31,5.) H.0.28m.; Br. 0.20m.; Th. 0.12m. Fragment — left thigh 
and part of the right — of a female figure moving rapidly towards the front and left, clad in a chiton 
girt at the waist. The folds at the sides are not sharply set off from the surface at the back, but pass 
over into it in curves. The surface of the back is roughened with a fine toothed chisel. The front 
seems to have been treated in the same way as that of the previous fragment. Little grooves are 
still distinguishable. Pallat says: ‘‘Near the upper left corner on the back is a bit of bronze, but not 
in a hole, and there is no clear trace of a dowel.” There is now no trace of bronze or of dowel hole. 
This fragment is very similar to 2. The marble is noticeably coarse grained. 

6. (No. 1074; Pallat 31, 6.) H.0.44 m.; Br. 0.23 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Lower part of a female 
figure moving with airy motion, not rapidly, forward and to the left. She is clad in chiton and hi- 
mation. The sides at right and left pass over in curves into the rough surface of the back. The 
figure appears to be broken at the bottom. The surface of the coarse-grained marble has suffered 
from fire and crumbles readily. 

7. (No. 1300; Pallat 31, 7.) H.0.85 m.; Br. 0.18 m.; Th. 0.095 m. Fragment — extending 
from the breasts to the knees — of a female figure moving, like the preceding one, with airy motion 
towards the left. She is entirely wrapped in her himation, one corner of which is thrown over her 
left forearm. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel. In it, at a point corresponding to 
the left breast, is a broken dowel hole (1. 0.035 m.; d.0.04m.). Itis 0.275 m. from the lower edge (i.e., 
about 0.46 m. from the original ground line) and extends somewhat diagonally downwards from right 
to left, as seen from the back. The fragment was at one time built into a wall and is much worn off. 

8. (Nos. 2830 and 2830 a; Pallat 31,8.) H.0.21_m.; Br.0.24m.; Th.0.11 m.; and H. 0.27 m.; 
Br. 0.22 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Two fragments, which fit one another, of a female figure clad in chiton 
and himation. She sits in profile towards the right on a smoothly worked, somewhat rounded seat 
which seems to have had a slight moulding at the top (Pallat calls this a stone, Casson a box; it is a 
seat of cut stone), bends her body forward, and extends her left forearm in the same direction. The 
right forearm is bent upwards, and the hand must have extended somewhat higher than the left 
breast. The lower part of the left leg is broken off, and therefore the entire lower part of the figure 
looks somewhat too small in comparison with the full forms of the upper part. The back surface of 
both parts is worked with coarse toothed chisel and point and has, in the upper fragment, flaked off 
somewhat. The dowel hole is in the lower fragment at the broken right hand edge as seen from 
behind. It consists of three overlapping drill holes (1. 0.04 m.; d. 0.042 m.) and is 0.165 m. from the 
ground line. The work on the front seems to have been vigorous and not very fine. 

9. (No. 1296; Pallat 31,9.) H. 0.20 m.; Br. 0.27 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Fragment — thighs and 
great part of legs — of a figure seated towards the right, but turned more towards the front than 
towards the side. The legs are covered with a cloak. The knees and shins are broken away. The 
seat is of uncertain shape (Casson suggests a rock or a large box). The back surface is roughly 
worked with a point and made even with a toothed chisel. On the front the drill was freely used; 
this is seen especially in the collection of folds under the right thigh. 


THE SCULPTURES 249 


10. (No. 1238; Pallat 31, 10.) H. 0.35 m.; Br. 0.28 m.; Th. 0.18 m. Lower part of a female 
figure clad in a chiton with kolpos and apoptygma and, apparently, a himation the folds of which 
fall over the seat at the left. She sits turned half towards the right, on a seat so high that her thighs 
are not horizontal, but slope downward towards the knees. Both knees are broken away. The seat, 
of unusual form, is broken away at the bottom (Casson calls it a rock, but the form seems too regular). 
This figure sits, like the previous one, with her legs spread somewhat apart. There is, as Schoene and 
Pallat have observed, no indication that she is rising from her seat, as was suggested by Stephani. 
The back surface is dressed with a rather coarse toothed chisel, except at the upper left (right, as seen 
from the front) corner, where it is smooth. The broken lower edge is embedded in plaster. The 
drapery of the front is designed with a certain largeness and is clearly subdivided, but the treatment 
is somewhat coarse. 

11. (No. 1237; Pallat 31, 11.) H. 0.33 m.; Br. 0.83 m.; Th. 0.165 m. Lower part of a female 
figure seated towards the left on a rock. She is clad in a girded chiton and a himation and holds in 
her lap a naked boy whose legs were wrought free from the background and are now broken off; 
a faint trace of them still remains on the seat. The back surface is smooth, as if polished; in the lower 
part are some marks of the point. The bottom, apparently level, rests now on a plaster base. The 
work on the front is like that of the previous figure. This fragment is of the same type as 84, but in 
the reverse position. Both are said to have been found in front of the North Portico. The two frag- 
ments have often been considered parts of a symmetrical group (p. 245; ef. Casson, p. 183), but 84 
seems, by its proportions, to belong to the frieze of the cella, this fragment to that of the North 
Portico. 

12. (No. 1234; Pallat 31,12.) H.0.33 m.; Br. 0.34m.; Th. 0.15 m. Lower part of a female figure 
sitting to left on a rock. She is clad in chiton and himation. The feet and part of the legs are 
broken away. In the surface of the fracture at the right side of the seat are the inner edges of a large 
number of holes in two rows, a front and a back row; they were bored from the front towards the 
back. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel and in some places with the point. Two 
small holes are visible in the front, about 0.10 m. apart. The hole at the left is 0.05 m. from the 
left edge of the fragment and 0.02 m. from the bottom; the other is 0.028 m. from the bottom, which 
is, apparently, level and now rests on plaster. On the front some details seem to be executed in a 
clumsier and harder manner than on the two previous fragments. 

13. (No. 1072; Pallat 31,13.) H.0.44m.; Br. 0.28m.; Th.0.18m. Female figure, sitting, some- 
what turned towards the left. She wears a chiton with girdle and a himation. The right half of the 
body (with shoulder and arm), the left forearm, and the feet are broken off. The left forearm and 
the feet were carved in the round. The seat is rounded at the right, but is not cylindrical; at the left, 
behind the right leg, its shape is irregular. It stands on a low elevation, probably a low rock or un- 
even ground, and is considerably higher behind the right leg than in front. The back surface is 
dressed with a fine toothed chisel in the upper part, and in the lower part, apparently at some later 
time, coarsely worked with a point. In the body, following the direction of the fracture, i.e., obliquely 
to the ground line and 0.33 m. above it, is the dowel hole (1. 0.065 m.; br. 0.015 m.; d. 0.045 m.). Its 
upper edge is slightly higher than the middle of the breast; its long axis forms with the lower edge of 
the figure an angle of 60 degrees. Behind the shoulder an oblique pour channel enters this dowel 
hole. The front of this fragment is especially well preserved. The deep undercutting, in the exe- 
cution of which the drill was much used, is noticeable. The folds of the himation, regarded separately, 
are carried through in fine continuous curves without sharp interruptions, in contrast to the method 
pursued in 18. In section they are rounded, and where they lie flat on the body they are pretty thick, 
even looking as if stuffed. The chiton lies upon the body in small folds which are here lighter and 
more lively than in 4, and in general the fragment under discussion is distinguished from fragment 4 
by moderation in detail. Only at the bottom, where the chiton appears below the himation, the pro- 


250 THE ERECHTHEUM 


jecting parts of the folds, which are very narrow and project as much as 0.038 m., are enlivened by 
longitudinal grooves, undercuttings, etc. Some spirally curved folds, such as are frequent on the 
balustrade of the temple of Athena Nike, are found here, one of them quite in the bottom of one of 
the incised folds. 

14. (No. 3309; Pallat 31, 14.) H.0.25m.; Br.0.17m.; Th. 0.18 m. Fragment — thighs and 
about one-third of the legs below the knees — of a figure, apparently female, standing in front view. 
She stands with her weight on her right leg, and wears a himation, a corner of which is visible upon 
the left thigh. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel at the edge and coarsely treated 
with the point in the middle. The lower two-thirds of the left edge are bevelled off. The front, on 
account of the very sharply cut folds, looks at first different from that of the other fragments. This 
fragment, however, certainly belongs to the frieze. 

15. (No. 1284; Pallat 31, 15.) H.0.25m.; Br. 0.16 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Trunk, including right 
shoulder and neck, of a female figure facing three-quarters to left (her right). She was probably 
standing, but may have been seated. She leans forward and to the right. This fragment is composed 
of two pieces. The right arm extended downward and forward; the left arm may have been raised. 
The back surface, in so far as it is not worked round from the left side, is roughly dressed with a point. 
In the axis of the fracture is the dowel hole (1. 0.045 m.; br. 0.014 m.; d. 0.035 m.). On the front the 
treatment of the kolpos and apoptygma is quite coarse; and the little folds below likewise begin 
rather clumsily. Cf. for the contrary 4 and 77. 

16. (No. 1295; Pallat 31, 16, upper.) H. 0.34 m.; Br. 0.20m.; Th. 0.135 m. Fragment of a 
female figure facing the front, clad in a long chiton and a himation. The right arm was bent and 
passed across the body, the left forearm was extended forward and to the right (her left). The 
weight was evidently borne on the left leg. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel; but 
towards the bottom the surface has crumbled away somewhat. The drilled dowel hole is slightly 
higher than the right breast — about 0.49 m. from the estimated ground line — and is entered by a 
drilled pour channel from the left shoulder. The fragment has evidently suffered from fire and is in 
bad condition. Pallat, followed by Casson, joins this with the following fragment. The surfaces of 
the two do not, however, fit, and the deep folds of 17 could never develop from the drapery of this 
piece, even if the folds corresponded in position, which is not the case. Pallat’s suggestion (A. J. A., 
p. 196), that this figure may have had its place on block IV, hole 3 or 7, of the North Portico, is not 
affected by the separation of the two fragments. 

17. (No. 13807; Pallat 31, 16, lower.) H.0.19m.; Br. 0.15m.; Th. 0.09 m. The lower part — 
from almost the height of the knees — of a draped figure facing the front. The weight is on the left 
leg and the right is slightly bent. The folds of the drapery are very deeply cut. The right (as seen 
from the front) half of the back is unusually rough. Casson calls attention to the resemblance of 
this fragment and 35. As stated above, this fragment does not belong with 16. 

18. (No. 1239; Pallat 31,17.) H.0.387m.; Br. 0.21 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Lower part, from about 
the waist down, of a figure in chiton and himation, half seated in, or leaning against, a decorated arm- 
chair, perhaps rising from it. The himation is slipping down. At the person’s left side the pillar-like 
leg of the chair, and the arm, which ends in a lion’s head and is supported by a sphinx, are preserved 
(Fig. 152). The surface between the arm of the chair and the seat is plain and smooth. The seat 
of the figure is higher up than the arm of the chair; the person is, therefore, not sitting, nor, as seen 
from this side, standing with bent knees. At the figure’s right side (Fig. 153) the leg and arm of the 
chair are almost entirely wanting. The right arm extended downwards, and the hand seems to have 
rested on the arm of the chair. The leg and arm of the chair were not covered by the drapery. The 
under side of the seat (at a) lies at the same height as on the left (0.175 m. high); b-b indicates the 
upper edge of the leg of the chair. At the figure’s left the distance from the under side of the seat to 
the upper edge of the arm is 0.09 m.; here at the right, beginning at a, 0.09 m. extends only to ¢, i. e., 


THE SCULPTURES 251 


to the lower edge, or to the undercutting, of the arm, the upper edge of which is marked by a drill hole 
(at d) that comes from above. The arm of the figure is clearly to be made out. From this side also 
one gets the impression that Stephani, in opposition to Schoene, is right when he says in eo est ut 
surgat. The figure can hardly have been intended to produce upon the spectator who saw it from 
below the effect of being seated. For, apart from the fact that the himation would then have to le 
differently, the figure, since the point of separation of the thighs is as high as in a standing figure 
(ef. 6 and 16; this, with the height of the seat, is also the chief ground for assigning this fragment to 
the North Portico), must have appeared to be higher than the seated figures and therefore to be 
standing or nearly standing (Casson, p. 197, appears to believe that the figure is seated, though on 
p. 196 he does not). The somewhat stiff posture of the legs is probably occasioned in part by the 


N 


— 
Wis. Ws 


Figure 152. FRAGMENT 18: FRONT Figure 153. FRAGMENT 18: 
AND LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE 


narrowness of the ground surface (i. e., by the slight projection of the relief). Reminiscence of an 
archaic prototype does not seem to be intended. The arrangement of the himation is only less lively 
than in the other fragments. The kolpos, lying flat on the body, is treated in a way like that seen on 
the base of the Nemesis of Rhamnus. We find here the same breaks in the folds, and also in the sel- 
vage, as there (cf. Jb. Arch. I., TX, 1894, pls. I ff. and, for contrast, fragments 1 and 13). The folds are 
also, here as there, cut in as far as the surface of the body. Among the fragments of our frieze, 77 is 
most closely related to this. Compare the folds over the arm of the chair here with those by the upper 
arm of the left hand figure there. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel. The bottom 
of the fragment was formerly embedded in plaster, and an apparently modern pin still remains fixed 
in it. The figure is almost certainly female, and was interpreted by Schoene as Athena, but Casson 
observes that the hips are narrow and the physique not markedly feminine and suggests that a male 
deity — perhaps Zeus — may be represented. 


252 THE ERECHTHEUM 


19. (No. 1285; Pallat 31, 18.) H.0.27m.; Br. 0.16 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Upper part — without 
the head — of a female figure clad in a thin chiton and standing with her weight on her left foot. The 
right arm hangs by her side. The left arm seems to have been akimbo, with the hand on the hip 
though there are no clear traces of contact at this point. The surface has suffered much from ex- 
posure. The back surface is rough and the front surface abraded. At the left (the figure’s right) side 
the modelling is roughly carried round to the back. The dowel hole (1. 0.04 m.; d. 0.04 m.) is 0.15 m. 
from the lower edge (i. e., about 0.42 m. from the original ground line), corresponding in height to the 
left breast. It was made by means of three drill holes and is now broken out at the side. The lowest 
drill hole still contains some metal. A drilled pour channel comes from behind the neck at the left. 
Pallat suggests that this may belong with 54. As the figure is now set up, the neck is inclined very 
much to the right. Probably the whole should be somewhat tilted to the left. 


20. (No. 1199; Pallat 31,19 a.) H.0.26 m.; Br.0.16m.; Th.0.09m. Upper part, from neck to 
thighs, of a female figure wearing a chiton with overfall (kolpos and apoptygma). She appears to be 
standing. The drapery on the right hip seems hardly to belong to the chiton; it may be part of a 
chlamys or himation. The back surface is dressed with toothed chisel and point. This fragment is 
put together from two pieces. In the back, in a position a little higher than the left breast, and about 
0.46-0.47 m. from the estimated ground line, is the dowel hole (I. 0.04 m.; d. 0.03 m.), now broken 
out. The sides of it are smooth and show no traces of drilling. Pallat puts this together with 21 and 
(A. J. A., p. 196) finds five places on the North Portico (block I, 4, block II, 1, and block IV, 1, 4, 
6) which the whole might fit. But his only apparent reason for uniting this with 21 is the similarity 
in treatment of the back surface. There is really no sufficient evidence. 


21. (No. 1304; Pallat 31,19 b.) H.0.20m.; Br.0.17m.; Th.0.09m. Lower part of a standing 
draped figure, from below the knee to the ground. The weight rests on the left foot. The right foot 
appears to have rested on a slight elevation 0.025 m. in height, the right surface of which is smooth 
and vertical; its left surface is covered by the drapery. The back surface is treated like that of 20 
(see above). The under surface is rougher than the back, and in it is a hole 0.01 m. in diameter, con- 
taining lead but no pin or plug. Pallat, following Schoene, regards this hole as modern. 


22. (No. 2837; Pallat 31, 20.) H. 0.25 m.; Br. 0.16 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Fragment — from the 
navel to the knee — of a female figure wearing a chiton and a himation, and moving to the right with 
her weight on her left leg. The back surface is very narrow (only about 0.03 m.) and roughly worked 
with a point. It slopes off decidedly to the right and is broken at the left. The front is much abraded. 
Pallat suggests that 54 may be part of this figure. 


23. (No. 1209; Pallat 32,1.) H. 0.09 m., Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Abdominal portion of a 
female figure in chiton and himation facing the front. The chiton is drawn tight, so that it seems 
almost transparent. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel. The treatment of the front 
is hard, resembling that of 74 and 79. 


24. (No. 1270; Pallat 32,2.) H.0.22m.; Br. 0.12m.; Th. 0.11m. Right shoulder and breast 
of a female figure in an ungirt chiton. The right arm was extended horizontally; the hand held a 
corner of the garment the folds of which are indicated in the back. The back surface was first 
dressed and then coarsely treated with a point. In it is a dowel hole (1. 0.04 m.; br. 0.01 m.; 
d. 0.042 m.) made with three drill holes. The marble of the fragment, which is in very poor condi- 
tion, flakes off in large, thin layers. 


25. (No. 2843; Pallat 32,3). H.0.19m.; Br. 0.16 m.;Th. 0.11 m. Right breast and part of the 
raised upper arm of a female figure. Pallat says: ‘Apparently in rapid motion towards the left’ a8 
but the folds of the drapery fall almost vertically, giving no indication of motion. She was clad in a 
sleeved chiton and wore a himation the folds of which are over her right arm. The back of the drapery 
that falls from the arm is carved in some detail. The back surface is almost smooth. At the broken 


THE SCULPTURES 253 


edge is a broken dowel hole, 0.10 m. from the bottom. The work on the front is like that of 4. Pallat 
(A. J. A., p. 192, note 7) suggests that this may belong with 5, and Casson repeats the suggestion. 
26. (No. 1250; Pallat 32, 4.) H. ca. 0.165 m.; Br. ca. 0.12 m.; Th. 0.095 m. Right shoulder 
and two-thirds of the breast of a female figure in a sleeveless chiton which is pinned in front, near the 
right shoulder. The folds show that the figure is moving rapidly towards the left. The back is in- 
jured by fracture. Only faint remains of the pour channel and the dowel hole are recognizable at 
the height of the shoulder. Casson classes this among the “Nike figure fragments ”’ (see under 4). 
27. (No. 1249; Pallat 32,5.) H.0.16m.; Br. 0.13 m.; Th.0.10m. Breast — without the left 
shoulder — of a youthful female figure in chiton and himation, apparently moving rapidly towards 
the right. In this fragment, as in several others, part of the back is worked out, but only roughly 
(Fig. 154). A small part of the back is nearly smooth; below this and to the right of it are half-wrought 
folds of the himation; farther right, shallow folds of the chiton; two small holes, one horizontal and 


Figure 154. FRAGMENT 27: BACK Figure 155. FRAGMENT 28: BACK 


one rising at an angle of about 45 degrees, are in the right half of the fragment; and towards the left 
is the broken dowel hole, with traces of the oblique pour channel. Casson connects this also with the 
“Nike figure fragments”’ (see under 4). 

28. (No. 1202; Pallat 32, 6.) H.0.15m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Breast, without the left 
shoulder, of a female figure facing nearly front and moving to the right. She was clad in a sleeveless 
chiton and seems to have held in her raised right hand a mantle blown out by the wind. The back 
surface is rudely worked over with a point. In it, corresponding in position to the middle of the 
breast, 0.055 m. from the lower edge (i. e., about 0.40 m. from the original ground line), is a broken 
dowel hole (1. 0.035 m.; br. 0.02 m.; d. 0.03 m. Fig. 155). Casson classes this with the series of ‘‘ Nike 
figure fragments.” 

29. (No. 2842; Pallat 32, 7.) H. 0.12 m.; Br. 0.115 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Breast and shoulders of 
a female figure standing in front view. She seems to have worn a himation in addition to her chiton. 
The back surface is somewhat abraded. In it the remains of a dowel hole, which corresponds ap- 
proximately to the left breast, are plainly recognizable. The fragment is of the same type as 4, 27, 
28, etc., but is in bad preservation. 

30. (No. 1227; Pallat 32,8.) H.0.16m.; Br.0.18m.; Th. 0.12m. Neck, right shoulder, right 
upper arm, and right breast of a female figure standing in three-quarter profile to (spectator’s) right. 
She wore a sleeveless chiton, pinned on the right shoulder, and had her hair bound in a mass at the 
back. The back surface is dressed with a point and a toothed chisel. The broken dowel hole (several 
drill holes, one above the other; 1. 0.04 m.; d. 0.04 m.) is 0.07 m. above the lower edge of the frag- 
ment (i.e., about 0.43 m. above the original ground line) and corresponds in position to the left 
breast. No trace of the pour channel remains. The fragment is in bad condition, but exhibits the 
same type and style as the preceding. 


254 THE ERECHTHEUM 


31. (No. 1240; Pallat 32,9.) H. 0.12 m.; Br. 0.08 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Left shoulder, upper left 
arm, breast, and upper part of body of a female figure in a sleeveless chiton, facing the front. The 
fragment is broken behind. In the surface of the break the upper and middle drill holes of the dowel 
hole are preserved, 0.08 m. above the lower edge, at the height of the breast. At the right a small 
part of the smoothly chiselled back surface is preserved. That which appears as the front on PLATE 
XLI is, therefore, really the side of the fragment, and that which appears as the right side in our 
plate is the front. Figure 156 shows the fragment as it would have appeared to a spectator standing 
in front of the frieze. As the fragment is now mounted all trace of the dowel hole is hidden. Casson 
suggests that this may belong with 11, but he thought the front was as given on our plate. 

32. (No. 2839; Pallat 32, 10.) H. 0.13 m.; Br. 0.135 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Right shoulder, part of 
the breast and of the right upper arm of a man (perhaps bearded) standing (?) to right; he may have 
been leaning on something, perhaps a staff. His right arm was stretched forward. He wears a 
himation, the folds of which are seen on the back and a corner of which is squeezed under the right 


Ficure 156. FRAGMENT 31: Figure 157. FRAGMENT 33: 
FRONT BACK 


armpit. The back surface is rudely worked with a point. The broken dowel hole, corresponding to 
the left shoulder, is in the fracture at the side; it consists of three drill holes (1. 0.035 m.; d. 0.04m.), 
and is inclined upward to the left (as seen from behind) at an angle of 45 degrees. A pour channel, 
coming diagonally from the outer edge, enters it from above. 

33. (No. 1241; Pallat 32,11.) H.0.125m.; Br. 0.155 m.; Th. 0.085 m. Fragment of a draped 
limb. Pallat thinks it is the left elbow of a figure which seems to have held the left hand pressed to ~ 
the left side, with the elbow projecting. At the back the mantle is worked out as in the front (Fig. 157). 
The flat back surface is not preserved, but its direction can be determined by means of the remains 
of a dowel hole (1. 0.06 m.; d. 0.02 m.) towards which a pour channel leads. The channel is now 
broken and does not reach the dowel hole. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 192, note 2) suggests that this may 
belong to 45, to which Hill (zbzd.) assents. 

34. (No. 1244; Pallat 32,12.) H.0.20m.; Br. 0.17 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Lower part — from the 
knees down — of a female figure in a long chiton; she is in profile and is walking towards the left 
(Casson says she is facing the front). The right foot, which is missing, was raised from the ground. 
The sandal under the left foot is hollowed out below. Traces of drilling are found here and under the 
garment that hangs free between the feet. The back surface is made unusually smooth with a toothed 
chisel. At the back of the left sandal, below the garment that hangs between the legs, the marble was 
cut through to the back, so that the robe hung free of the ground. 

35. (No. 1286; Pallat 32, 13.) H.0.205m.; Br. 0.18m.; Th. 0.11m. Lower part — from the 
knee down — of a female figure facing somewhat to left of front and wearing a himation. She seems 
to have been moving with dance-like step or to have stood leaning on something at her left. The 
weight must have been on the left leg, which is slightly in front of the right and rather close toit. On 
the left foot is a sandal with a thick sole, or, perhaps, a boot the upper part of which is covered by 


THE SCULPTURES 255 


the drapery. The back surface and the under surface are rudely worked with a point. The fragment 
was built into a wall, and is therefore slightly smeared with mortar and injured. 

36. (No. 2833; Pallat 32,14.) H.0.23m.; Br.0.15m.; Th. 0.11 m. Lower part — from about 
the knees down — of a probably female figure standing in full front and resting her weight upon her 
right foot. She wears a long chiton and stands upon a plinth 0.014 m. high. The right foot is covered 
with a shoe. The back surface is finely, the under surface more rudely, roughened with the toothed 
chisel. The work of this fragment resembles that of 1. 

37. (No. 2834; Pallat 32,15.) H. 0.27 m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Lower part — from the 
middle of the thighs down — of a female figure standing in full front and wearing a long chiton. She 
stands on a plinth 0.008 m. high and rests her weight on her right foot. There are four small drill 
holes just above the bottom in front. The fragment has suffered from fire and has flaked and crum- 
bled off a good deal behind and at the bottom. 

38. (No. 1246; Pallat 32, 16.) H. 0.21 m.; Br. 0.14 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Fragment of a female 
figure in front view. She wears a chiton and a himation. The projecting part at the left (her right) 
side seems to be the kolpos of a chiton so girded that the kolpos hangs low over the girdle, and here 
the himation falls over this. The weight of the figure was borne by the right leg, and the left foot was 
placed forward. The back surface is rudely worked over with a point. At the highest point of the 
back are the remains of a dowel hole (under side of the lowest drill hole). On the costume, cf. Ath. 
Mitt., XX, 1895 (Triptolemus relief from Eleusis) and Mon. Inst., IX, pl. XVI (reliefs from the Diony- 
siac theatre). Pallat’s suggestion (A. J. A., p. 196) that the figure held a cloth like that seen on the 
“Tudovisi throne” is not very plausible. 

39. (No. 1261; Pallat 32, 17.) H.0.18 m.; Br. 0.16 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Fragment of a figure 
turned in half profile to the right, and either standing or walking with a short step. The figure wears 
a himation and seems to be male. The back surface was worked with a toothed chisel. It has suf- 

fered from fire and crumbles easily, as does also the front. 
40. (No. 2826; Pallat 32,18.) H.0.22m.; Br. 0.17 m.; Th..0.12 m. Fragment, from a little 
below the waist to below the hips, of a female figure standing in front view and resting her weight 
on her right foot. She wears a chiton with kolpos and apoptygma, and seems to have been drawing 
forward with her right hand a cloak that hung down her back. The back surface is rudely worked 
with a point, the front badly abraded. The drill was freely used for the folds of the kolpos and 
- apoptygma. 

41. (No. 1287 a; Pallat 32,19.) H. 0.23 m.; Br. 0.17 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Thighs and waist of a 
female figure. She stands in front view, with her weight on her right leg, and wears a chiton with 
kolpos and apoptygma. This fragment certainly does not belong to the same figure as 96, though 
the two pieces were formerly set together with plaster. The motives of the folds of the drapery do 
not correspond; they are more detailed in the lower piece, which seems also to belong to a smaller 
figure. The back surface is rough, the front much abraded. 

42. (No. 1298; Pallat 32,20.) H.0.40m.; Br. 0.16m.; Th.0.11_m. Lower part, from the waist 
down, of a female figure in chiton with kolpos and apoptygma, standing in front view, with her 
weight on her right leg and the left knee bent. Made up of two pieces. At the right side of the figure, 
in a fold of the apoptygma, is a bit of lead. The back surface and the under surface are dressed with 
a fine toothed chisel. 

43. (No. 1302; Pallat 32, 21.) H.0.23m.; Br.0.16m.; Th.0.13 m. Fragment, from the waist 
down to the thighs, of a female figure in chiton with kolpos and apoptygma, standing in front view 
with her weight on her right leg and turning somewhat towards the right. There are two drill holes, 
doubtless for attachments, one in the left thigh, the other in the lower part of the abdomen. At the 
(spectator’s) left a cloak that hung down behind was pulled forward. The back surface is somewhat 
rough, but shows no trace of any tool (cf. 41 and 52). The front is much abraded. 


256 THE ERECHTHEUM 


44, (No. 1283; Pallat 32, 22.) H.0.22m.; Br. 0.18m.; Th. 0. 10 m. Made up of two pieces. 
Thighs, etc., of a woman like 43 in costume and posture, though the left knee (now restored in 
plaster) is somewhat more bent. Here also at the (spectator’s) left a cloak that hung down behind 
was pulled up forward. The back surface is smooth at the left edge, elsewhere rudely worked with a 
point. 

45. (No. 1306; Pallat 32, 23.) H. 0.23 m.; Br. 0.19m.; Th. 0.14m. Portion, from the waist 
to the knees, of an apparently male figure standing in front view with the weight on the left leg and 
wearing a himation. The back surface is somewhat rough, the front much damaged (see under 33). 


46. (No. 1221; Pallat 32, 24.) H.0.28m.; Br. 0.15m.; Th. 0.11_m. Middle portion of a prob- 
ably female figure standing in front view with the weight on the right leg and wearing chiton and 
himation. The back surface is rudely worked with a point, the front much damaged. 

47. (No. 1305; Pallat 32, 25.) H.0.20m.; Br. 0.20 m.; Th. 0.15m. Thighs and lower part of 
body of a male figure seated to right. The garment that is wrapped about the legs fell down from the 
shoulder. Save for that, the upper part of the body seems to have been entirely nude. The knees are 
broken away. At the left side, forming an obtuse angle with the back, is a smooth surface, at the 
lower edge of which are two small holes. The back surface is roughly worked with a point in the 
middle, but smooth at the edge (cf. 66, which also shows similarity in the treatment of the front). 
At the back upper edge the remains of a dowel hole (remnant of a drill hole) are visible. 

48. (No. 1201; Pallat 32, 26.) H.0.16m.; Br. 0.18 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Fragment of a crouching 
or kneeling female figure in chiton and himation; she is turned towards the left. At her right side 
is a projection which may come from the right knee. The lower part of this side, which lies farther 
back, forms an acute angle with the front; it is smooth in the upper part and 
broken in the lower (Fig. 158). Whatever abutted there can hardly have been 
part of the figure; at any rate, it was not the left foot, which must be farther 
to the right, about where the folds are crowded together. The back surface is 
rudely worked with a point; only towards the bottom a small part is dressed 
with a toothed chisel. Perhaps there was at the left another standing figure (as 
in the following fragment), or some object connected with this figure in such a 
way that the right knee was not visible at all. In the present condition of the 
fragment no natural transition appears between the folds on the left and those 
on the right leg. In the under surface is a hole, 0.01 m. in diameter, containing 
lead. Pallat says this hole is modern, but see page 243, note 4. 


ny hy 49. (No. 1288; Pallat 32,27.) H.0.19m.; Br. 0.28m.; Th.0.14m. Lower 
FRAGMENT 48: sipE_ part of a group of two figures, both probably female, turned towards the right. 
The figure at the right is standing, or walking slowly to right, the one at the 
left is kneeling. Of the former the legs from the knee down and of the latter the legs and the abdom- 
inal portion are preserved. The standing figure wears a long chiton and has a sole under her right 
foot; the kneeling figure wears a long chiton and has a himation thrown about her legs. The back 
surface of the standing figure is rough and uneven, that of the kneeling figure smooth, with occasional 
small chisel marks. The under surface, in which is a hole (perhaps modern) containing a pin and 
lead, is rudely treated with a point. Casson compares this group with 66 (No. 1073) and says “the 
figures are in nearly the same position.” But the body of the kneeling figure here was clearly more 
erect than that of the kneeling youth in 66. The action must have been quite different. Rangabé 
(Ath. Mitt., VII, p. 333) suggests as interpretation Agraulus or Pandrosus seeking pardon for herself 
or her sister from Athena. He connects the “woman with a girl who is at her feet” of the inscrip- 
tion (XVII, col. 1, 1, 21) with this fragment. Pallat (A. J. A., pp. 194.) interprets it as Athena with 
Pandrosus waiting to receive Erichthonius. 


THE SCULPTURES 257 


50. (No. 2832; Pallat 32, 28.) H. 0.12m.; Br. 0.10m.; Th. 0.11m. Small fragment of a 
draped figure which Pallat thinks wore chiton and himation, was female, and probably kneeling to 
right. A hole in the front was presumably for a metal attachment. The back surface is somewhat 
rough. 

51. (No. 1220; Pallat 32, 29.) H. 0.135 m.; Br. 0.14m.; Th. 0.12 m. Fragment — the knees 
and thereabouts — of a probably female figure in front view, standing with her weight on her right 
leg. She wears a chiton over which, at the left, some folds fall; these may be part of a himation. 
The back surface is rudely treated with a point, the front much damaged. 

52. (No. 1203; Pallat, 32,30.) H.0.10m.; Br.0.18m.; Th.0.11m. Fragment — feet and part 
just above — of a female figure in chiton and himation, walking slowly to right. A thick sole is 
seen under her left foot. The back and under surfaces are rough, but show no traces of any tool. In 
the under surface are, in addition to a hole, 0.01 m. in diameter, containing lead, six small drill holes, 
each 0.005 m. in diameter. 

53. (No. 1247; Pallat, 32,31.) H.0.10m.; Br. 0.125 m.; Th. 0.10m. Small fragment of drap- 
ery, apparently from the right leg of a probably female figure walking towards the right and wearing 
chiton and himation. 

| 54. (No. 1205; Pallat 32, 32.) H.0.125m.; Br. 0.155 m.; Th. 0.085m. Fragment — portion 
about the feet — of a female figure standing in front view. She rests her weight on her left leg and 
wears chiton and himation. The back surface and the under surface were first dressed and then gone 
over with a point. Pallat suggests (Ant. Denk., p. 10) that this may belong with 22 or (A. J. A., 
p. 192) 19. 

55. (No. 1292; Pallat 32, 33.) H.0.175m.; Br. 0.25 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Thighs and a small part 
of the left leg below the knee of a male figure seated to left. He sat, apparently, in an armchair. The 
seat is undercut and has a roughly levelled surface. The whole is much damaged. The back sur- 
face is rudely treated with a point. 

56. (Pallat, A. J. A., pp. 176 ff., figs. 9-14; Casson, p. 174; no inventory number.) H. 0.31 m.; 
Br. 0.31 m.; Th. 0.16 m. Lower part, from above the knee, of a female figure standing to right 
(her left) and wearing chiton and himation. In front of her (i. e., to right) is something which Pallat 
calls a thronos. It cannot be, as Casson suggests, a tripod. It had a level top which was covered with 
drapery. At the front one sturdy pillar-like leg is preserved. At the right, toward the back, part of 
the top is preserved, and above it, separated by a cutting 0.028 m. high and, at its deepest point, 
0.03 m. deep, is a horizontal projection 0.012 m. thick. This is without doubt the upper rail of the 
arm of the chair (or, possibly, the whole is a couch, in which case this would be the upper rail of the 
end). At the right, 0.152 m. from the ground line, is a hole, perhaps, as Casson suggests, for fastening 
on another leg. On the chair is something which measures 0.18 m. in width and 0.08 m. in height. 
This Pallat regards as a cushion which the figure is pressing down with her left hand. He compares 
the “thronos”’ with that of 18. Casson suggests that the object on it may be a wineskin or some sacri- 
ficial offering. The figure is evidently touching the object, but what it is must, for the present, re- 
main doubtful. In the depression on the top of it, part of the finished surface is preserved — a 
curved surface treated like nude flesh. Possibly a baby lay on a cushion and was held down by the 
left hand of the female figure. In the bottom of the fragment is a pin hole, 0.01 m. in diameter, 
which probably served to fasten the figure to the top of the architrave (see p. 243). It extends through 
the marble behind the broken drapery. This fragment was identified by Professor Heberdey. 

57. (Casson, p. 175; noinventory number.) H. 0.085m.; Br. 0.08 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Head of a 
female figure. Much worn. The right cheek and right side of the chin are wanting. A hole in the 
top of the head may have served for fastening on a meniskos. The back of the head is flat, which 
shows that the head belongs to the frieze, and the proportions are those of the figures of the North 
Portico. 


258 THE ERECHTHEUM 


58. (No. 284.) H. 0.13 m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Neck and shoulders, right breast and part 
of the left breast of a female figure facing the front. She wears a chiton which is tied on the right and 
Her left arm was raised, her right probably extended to the side. Her 
head was turned slightly to her right. The proportions 
seem to be those of the larger figures. The surface is 
exceptionally well preserved. The back is unfinished, 
though not perfectly flat. A broken dowel hole, 0.035 m. 
long and 0.03 m. deep, is at the right side (Fig. 159a). 
In the back is a pin hole 0.005m. in diameter (Fig. 159). 
The workmanship, both of the nude parts and of the 
drapery, is very fine. Casson compares the technique 
with that of 4. 

af 59. (No. 3437; hitherto unpublished.) H.0.12m.; 
a : Br. 0.105 m.; Th. 0.09m. Left shoulder, wearing chiton 
Figure 159. FRAGMENT 58: (A) SIDE; (B) BACK and himation. The latter passes under the left arm 
around to the back. Behind the neck is a drilled hole, 
0.013 m. in diameter and 0.04 m. deep, passing down diagonally, undoubtedly for pouring lead about 
the dowel. The rear surface is smoothly picked with the point. One side of the dowel hole is pre- 
served in the fracture. It is 0.04 m. high and has a depth of 0.04 m. It was made by three drilled 
holes, one above the other. This fragment certainly belongs to the frieze. Hill accepts it. This 
fragment and the two following are probably from the-larger series. They were recognized as 
belonging to the frieze by A. Panagiotakis, chief restorer and mender of the Acropolis Museum 
(Blegen). The inventory numbers of these three fragments are those of the National Museum, from 
which the fragments have been transferred to the Acropolis. The corresponding numbers of the 
inventory of the Acropolis Museum refer to architectural fragments. 

60. (No. 3438; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.12m.; Br. 0.09m.; Th. 0.07m. Fragment of 
left shoulder. The bare shoulder projects from the drapery which passes round it. The work was 
good, but the surface is not well preserved. In the himation, behind the shoulder, are two vertical 
drilled holes. The one to the right is 0.005 m. in diameter and 0.013 m. deep. The second is 0.007 m. 
in diameter and 0.015 m. deep. The rear surface is smoothly worked with the point. One side of 
the dowel hole is preserved. It is 0.04 m. high and 0.142 m. deep. It was made by drilling three 
holes one above the other. This fragment certainly belongs to the frieze. Hill accepts it (Blegen). 

61. (No. 3439; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.10 m.; Br. 0.09 m.; Th. 
0.11 m. Right shoulder and breast of a female figure. She wears a chiton 
pinned at the shoulder. The breast is prominent. The surface is fairly well. 
preserved, and the treatment is very good, recalling 77. The rear surface is 
carefully worked with the toothed chisel. The side of the dowel hole is pre- 
served, measuring 0.04 m. in height. It had a depth of 0.04m. This frag- 
ment also is certain. Hill agrees (Blegen). 

The following fragments (62-104) are on a smaller scale, and apparently 
belong to the main building. 

62. (No. 1248; Pallat 33,1.) H. 0.13 m.; Br. 0.16m.; Th.0.10m. Frag- 
ment — from the pubes to a point about half way between the knee and the 
ground — of a seated man turned to the left. He seems to have been seated Ficure 160. FRAG- 
obliquely towards the front, because the seat and the garment are finished gp eae ae 
behind the right leg. The cloak upon which he sits is thrown round the 


right leg from behind; the corner of it lies on the left thigh (Fig. 160). At the back the fragment 
is broken. 


pinned on the left shoulder. 


THE SCULPTURES 259 


63. (No. 1275; Pallat 33, 2.) H.0.19m.; Br.0.14m.; Th.0.10m. Fragment, from above the 
middle of the thighs to a little below the knee, of a male (?) figure standing in front view. The figure 
rests its weight on the right leg and wears a himation. The back surface is roughly worked with a 
point and is uneven on account of injuries; indeed the whole fragment has been much injured. 

64. (No. 1195; Pallat 33, 3.) H. 0.21 m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Fragment of a draped 
figure, probably male, standing in front view. The weight is borne on the right leg. Only the part 
from the abdomen to the knee is preserved. The back surface is dressed with a toothed chisel, the 
front much abraded. 

65. (No. 2836; Pallat 33,4.) H.0.23m.; Br.0.14m.; Th. 0.11m. Fragment of a man stand- 
ing with his weight on his left leg. The fragment extends from the breast to the middle of the thighs. 
The body is nude; a garment is cast about the legs and a little above the left hip. The flat back 
surface is but small, because both sides of the figure are rounded behind. The flat surface is dressed 
with a toothed chisel. In spite of the poor preservation of the front, the minute and dry treat- 
ment of the drapery is noticeable. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 187 and note) remarks that the fall of the 
himation shows that both arms were occupied. He suggests that the man may have assisted 92 
in carrying a mast. 

66. (No. 1073; Pallat 33,5.) H.0.49m.; Br. 0.22 m.; Th. 0.10m. Group — made up of four 
pieces — of two men turned to the right. One is standing, the other kneeling before him. Each wears 
a himation that leaves his body bare. The standing man leaned with his left armpit on a staff, for 
the fastening of which a hole is bored through the garment at the right of the end that hangs down. 
The kneeling figure has noticeably full forms, without being exactly boyish—as is, for instance, 84 — 
in appearance. His foot is quite smooth; perhaps he wears a shoe; possibly the foot is simply not 
worked out. The direction of his right arm was downward and forward; his left arm was bent, the 
forearm in an upward direction. His head is bent forward. The back surface has a border 0.02 m. 
wide and is treated in the middle with a point. Between the upper and the middle fragment is the 
dowel hole (about 0.05 m. long and about 0.015 m. wide), 0.85 m. above the ground line. The dowel 
hole is now smeared with plaster of Paris. The narrow plinth on which the two figures stand seems 
intended to indicate rock. On the under side it is broken towards the edge and level in the middle. 
In the treatment of the front, the rounded, and here and there even thick and swollen, folds of the 
drapery are characteristic. The nude also — though not in the kneeling figure — is rendered with a 
certain softness. Where the drapery hangs down from the left arm of the kneeling figure, the folds 
are produced by broad and deep cuttings; in the projecting lines between these cuttings the sudden 
bends are noticeable, as are the drill holes (not worked up into folds) in the mass of drapery between 
the legs, and also the apparently purposeless shallow drill hole in the left thigh. 

The head was published for the first time by Pallat (A. J. A., pp. 175 f., figs. 1 and 2), who gives 
its measurements. The upper part of the standing figure is not quite correctly attached; it should 
be slightly more erect. The head of the kneeling figure is turned a trifle too much towards the specta- 
tor. The kneeling figure has been interpreted (Collignon, Milchhéfer, Schoene) as a youth tying his 
sandal; but Robert (Hermes, XXV, l.c.) points out that the left arm was raised, and he suggests 
that the group represents the declaration of an oracle (cf. Jb. Arch. I., III, 1888, p. 59, P, from the 
Telephus frieze at Pergamon). He connects it with the group mentioned in the inscription (XVI, 
col. 1, ll. 1, 2); the kneeling figure would then be a youth writing down an oracle. But the youth’s 
right hand would, apparently, have been too low for this purpose, though Casson observes that 
there are marks upon the drapery just over his groin, which may possibly indicate that something, 
perhaps a tablet, was fixed upon his lap. A ‘definite interpretation is, then, still to be sought. Hill 
(quoted A. J. A., p. 183, note 7) says that this group can be placed at the fourth dowel hole in the 
first block of the south side, “‘though it fits there only passably. It can be placed nowhere else in 
the existing east or south frieze.” 


260 THE ERECHTHEUM 


67. (No. 1229; Pallat 33,6.) H. 0.255 m.; Br. 0.13 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Body of a standing nude 
man, in front view. On the right shoulder and in a projection on the back are traces of a chlamys, 
which seems to have been pinned together at the neck. The back surface is rudely worked with a 
point and is not even quite flat. In it, at the height of the breast, is the dowel hole (0.04 m. long and 
0.035 m. deep), made by drilling several holes. It is 0.18 m. from the lower edge of the fragment 
(i. e., 0.43 m. from the original ground line). In the surface of the fracture at the bottom are several 
drill holes about the legs, in the middle a hole with an iron pin and lead. Pallat thought this modern; 
Casson explains that the figure was fractured and mended in antiquity or else was made of two pieces 
of marble. Casson, p. 24, suggests that this figure and 69 may have represented Harmodius and 
Aristogeiton. Historical personages were, however, so far as we know, not introduced into the 
sculptured decorations of Greek temples, and it is hardly to be assumed that Harmodius and Aris- 
togeiton were regarded in the fifth century B.c. as mythological. 

68. (No. 1200; Pallat 33,7.) H.0.21m.; Br.0.12m.; Th.0.10m. Middle portion of a standing 
man in front view. Thrown round the legs is a garment which passes across the body and then, at the 
back, from the right hip towards the left shoulder. At the back the folds are only roughly indicated. 
The garment cannot have extended much farther downwards than it now does, because there are 
holes bored from below upwards between the legs. The lower part of the left leg was carved free from 
the background. The man wore, then, a cloak girt up. The flat back surface is only 0.06 m. wide and 
is roughly worked with a point. At the top, 0.20 m. from the lower edge (i. e., 0.41 m. from the 
original ground line), the remains of a dowel hole are visible. The treatment of the front is noticeably 
harsh and superficial. 

69. (No. 1197; Pallat 33, 8.) H.0.21m.; Br. 0.12m.; Th. 0.12 m. Torso of a nude man. He 
had his right arm raised and stood, apparently, firmly on his right foot, with the left foot placed 
somewhat away toward the left. The left arm was raised and the body somewhat turned to that 
side. The back is as roughly worked and as uneven as in 67; here also a piece reaching from the but- 
tocks to the shoulder is higher than the rest of the surface. In this raised portion, 0.135 m. from the 
lower edge (i. e., 0.38 m. from the original ground line), corresponding to the left breast, is the broken 
dowel hole. In the left hip is the end of an ancient drill hole. A drill hole in the surface of the frac- 
ture of the right leg is, however, modern. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 187) suggests that the figure was 
seated and may have held a lance in the right hand. For Casson’s suggestion see under 67. 

70. (No. 1299; Pallat 33,9.) H.0.11m.; Br. 0.19m.; Th.0.13m. Left thigh and leg to below 
the knee, and upper part of right thigh, of a draped figure seated to left. The back surface is dressed 
with the toothed chisel and has flaked off in part. The surface under the seat is smooth. 

71. (No. 1206; Pallat 33, 10.) H. 0.125 m.; Br. 0.10 m.; Th. 0.07 m. Left shoulder and ex- 
tended upper arm of a female figure in sleeved chiton and himation; the latter is tucked under the 
armpit and appears, probably, at the back. The left hand was perhaps drawing the himation up. 
In the drapery is a deep drilled hole. The back surface is rudely worked with a point. In it and in the 
surface of the fracture at the left is the dowel hole, placed very high and reaching to the neck. It is 
made by means of four drill holes. A pour channel coming from the left side of the neck runs into it. 
The fragment has suffered from fire and crumbles easily. As this-fragment is set up in the Acropolis 
Museum, the upper arm is almost horizontal. This would make the neck and, presumably, the head 
incline very much to the left in an unusual posture; but it makes the drapery fall in vertical folds 
and also makes the dowel hole vertical. If the arm is allowed to slope downward as in PLats XLIV, 
the peculiar folds of the drapery can be explained as due to the crowding of them under the armpit; 
and this would not be the only example of an oblique dowel hole. It is probable, however, that the 
installation in the Museum is correct. 

72. (No. 1216; Pallat 33, 11.) H. 0.13 m.; Br. 0.09 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Left shoulder, with a 
piece of the upper arm and left breast, of a female figure in a sleeveless chiton. Behind the shoulder 


THE SCULPTURES 261 


a remnant of a himation is visible; it was drawn up high. The back surface is dressed fairly smooth 
and exhibits only a few rather rough holes. The dowel hole, now broken, consists of three drill holes. 
A pour channel extending downwards to the right from the left shoulder runs into it. Pallat (A. J. A., 
p. 183, note 2) suggests that this may belong to the same figure as 95. Casson suggests a combina- 
tion with 74. 

73. (No. 2818; Pallat 33,12.) H.0.21m.; Br.0.15m.; Th. 0.11 m. Legs of a figure seated to 
right. The legs are covered with a cloak. The fragment is broken at the left and at the top. The 
surface of the right side of the cloak, in which the feet of the figure disappear, is smooth, as though 
worn by water, as is also the under side, which was originally dressed with a point. In the back sur- 
face, after it had been worked over with the toothed chisel, some very slight depressions were made 
with a point. Under the seat and the folds of the drapery are five small drill holes, which may have 
been part of the working of deeply cut drapery, now broken away. There seems to have been some- 
thing on the right knee of the figure. The design, like a curved horn or a handle ending in a knob, 
which appears in front at the left in low relief on the plane surface of the lower part of the fragment, 
is certainly not a mere ornament, but is very evidently part of the seat. If, as Pallat (A. J. A., 
p. 187) suggests, the figure is sitting in a wagon, this would be the seat of the wagon. However, a 
perfectly convincing explanation of this object, and of the unusual posture of the figure, is yet to be 
found. 

74. (No. 2844; Pallat 33,13.) H.0.115 m.; Br. 0.16 m.; Th. 0.08 m. Part of the thighs of a 
female figure in chiton and himation moving to left. The drapery is blown in between the legs. As 
Pallat says, it is not certain that this fragment belongs to the frieze. It agrees with the frieze in 
material and workmanship, but it is almost round and is broken at the back. The flat back surface 
must have been very narrow. The workmanship is similar to that of 79. Casson says the type is 
the same as that of 4, and suggests that 72 may belong with this. 

75. (No. 2829; Pallat 33, 14.) H.0.19m.; Br. 0.138 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Middle portion — waist 
and right thigh — of a female figure wearing a girded chiton and a himation. The folds of the dra- 
pery suggest a seated figure, but there is no trace of aseat. If not seated, she stood on her left foot 
and had her right foot placed in front of her or on some elevation. A part of the himation is worked 
out on the back. In the upper edge — about 0.36 or 0.37 m. from the presumable ground line, if the 
figure is standing — is the lower edge of a drill hole, doubtless the remnant of the dowel hole. The 
work of the front, especially in the chiton, goes into minute detail. 

76. (Nos. 1245, upper part, and 2819, lower part; Pallat 33, 15.) Upper part, H. 0.27 m.; Br. 
0.15 m.; Th. 0.10 m.; lower part, H. 0.22 m.; Br. 0.18 m.; Th. 0.11 m. Two fragments of a female 
figure standing in front view. The two fragments fit accurately. The figure is clad in a chiton with 
girdle and a himation. The latter falls towards the front over the right leg, which is bent forwards. 
The body is much damaged. The right arm was raised. The back surface, which was originally 
finely roughened, has now flaked off very much. In it, at a height of 0.402 m., is the broken dowel 
hole (1. 0.05 m.; br. 0.018 m.; d. 0.035 m.), made by means of several drill holes. It is inclined some- 
what towards the left (seen from behind). So far as the dowel hole is concerned, this fragment, 
according to my notes, might be fitted to the second hole of the second, the third, or (perhaps) the 
fourth block, or the first hole of the seventh block, of the eastern portico, but Casson says Hill 
mentions only the fourth hole of block II and the first of block V as possibilities. 

77. (No. 1071; Pallat 33, 16.) H. 0.49 m.; Br. 0.31 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Group of two women 
moving slowly towards the right. The one to the right turns towards the other and seems to be 
drawing her along. The former wears a girded chiton with kolpos and apoptygma, the latter a very 
thin chiton without girdle and with a himation thrown over it. At the point where the left wrist of 
the left-hand figure would naturally be, is a drill hole; perhaps the hand was attached; but this hole 
is more probably merely part of the working of the drapery. The back surface is dressed with a 


262 THE ERECHTHEUM 


toothed chisel and then somewhat rudely treated with a point. A very small remnant of the dowel 
hole — the left-hand corner — is at a height of 0.42 m., 0.215 m. from the extreme edge of the right- 
hand figure. The deep cutting in the back near the top appears to be modern. The treatment of the 
folds of the drapery and the execution in detail in the front betray, as has been already suggested, 
the same hand as 18. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 186) suggests that these figures may represent Demeter 
and Kore. A small fragment of drapery (No. 3213) is now joined to the left side of this group and is 
shown on PuatrE XLIV. Dr. Blegen found it in the small museum in 1917 and discovered the 
juncture. 

78. (No. 1077; Pallat 33,17.) H.0.47m.; Br. 0.17m.; Th.0.13m. Two fragments composing 
the figure of a woman standing in front view, wearing a chiton girded high and a himation. She 
rested her weight on her right leg and had her left foot placed on a slight elevation. At the right a 
remnant of a tree trunk is preserved, which is now broken off but certainly continued upwards. 
The whole movement, especially the posture of the left shoulder, indicates, as Schoene observed, 
that the figure was leaning on something. Perhaps her foot rested on a root and she leaned on a 
branch of the tree. The himation passed over the right shoulder and lies on the left thigh without 
being held. The back surface is narrow and dressed with the toothed chisel. The dowel hole is 0.42 m. 
above the lower edge and corresponds to the left breast. It is irregular (four drill holes) and 0.045 m. 
deep. This, although the upper part is not well preserved, is one of the finest fragments of the frieze. 
Pallat calls attention to the delicate workmanship and to the resemblance of this figure to the great 
statue in Berlin published by Kekulé von Stradonitz (Ueber eine weibliche Gewandstatue aus der 
Werkstatt der Parthenongiebelfiguren, 1894). He suggests (A. J. A., p. 186, note 1) that the fragment 
also represents Aphrodite and, following Kekulé, that it was modelled after the Berlin statue. 

79. (No. 1251; Pallat 33, 18.) H.0.14m.; Br. 0.12 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Fragment — abdomen 
and thighs — of a standing female figure in front view. She rests her weight on her left leg and wears 
a closely clinging chiton. At the sides, towards the back, one sees that she was pulling a cloak for- 
ward with her left hand. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel and in some places 
treated with a point. The front is discolored and shows traces of mortar, but one can see that the 
work was peculiarly fine and many small folds were sharply cut (or scratched) in. Pallat (A Sees, 
p. 186) suggests that this figure and 80 may represent the Charites. Casson says ‘‘the figure sug- 
gests the goddess Aphrodite.” 

80. (No. 1198; Pallat 33,19.) H.0.24m.; Br.0.11m.; Th.0.11_m. Torso of a standing female 
figure in front view. The breasts are very slightly developed. The surface is in poor condition. The 
chiton clings closely and only collects into a raised border at the sides. From this border little folds 
extend forward. Such folds were probably introduced on the front also. Now only the two folds 
between the breasts are visible, which pass up towards the right shoulder. The left shoulder is bare; 
the left arm seems to have hung down. The back surface, a small, trapezoidal, flat portion, is finely 
worked with a point. The dowel hole (0.04 m. deep and 0.05 m. long) is broken out; it is 0.32-0.33 m. 
from the presumable ground level and corresponds behind to the hip. In the bottom is a hole, per- 
haps modern, with lead and a pin. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 186) suggests that this and 79 represent the 
Charites. Casson thinks Von Sybel was probably right in believing that this does not belong to the 
frieze. But the reasons for rejecting this fragment are based upon its style and workmanship. The 
poor preservation of the surface deprives such reasons of much of their weight, and the presence of 
the dowel hole is a very positive argument for including this among the fragments of the frieze. 

81. (No. 1297; Pallat 33, 20.) H. 0.28 m.; Br. 0.20 m.; Th. 0.13 m, Lower part of a female 
figure seated to right and wearing chiton and himation. The seat seems to be meant for a rock. The 
back surface is very rudely worked with a point; part of the left leg is worked out behind. The 
under surface is broken at the right and has flaked off at the left. The whole fragment is much 
damaged. Remains of a dowel hole are found in the back, 0.27 m. from the ground line. Hill (A.J uAe 


THE SCULPTURES 263 


p. 183, note 6) says this can be fitted to the seventh hole in the fifth block or, better, the second 
hole in the fourth block of the eastern front. 

82. (No. 1281; Pallat 33, 21.) H. 0.24 m.; Br. 0.26 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Lower part of a female 
figure seated to right and wearing chiton and himation. The seat is of uncertain form, roughly 
worked at the left, not broken. It may represent a rock. The back surface is finely worked, its 
right lower corner treated with a point and bevelled. In it is a round hole containing lead. The 
under surface was made by drilling holes and knocking their edges away. There is in it a hole con- 
taining lead. 

83. (No. 1293; Pallat 33, 22.) H. 0.32 m.; Br. 0.23 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Lower part of a figure 
seated to right, wearing a himation and holding an omphalos. A hand — probably the left hand of 
the figure — reaches over the omphalos from behind. The back surface and the under surface are 
very rudely worked with a point, and the work on the front is likewise remarkably rude. Pallat 
calls the figure female and (A. J. A., p. 186) suggests that it may represent Ge or Themis. Casson 
thinks it may be male, and suggests Apollo. 

84. (No. 1075; Pallat 33, 23.) H.0.38m.; Br. 0.29m.; Th.0.11 m. Female figure seated 
to right, wearing a chiton, with kolpos and apoptygma, and a himation which hangs down from 
the shoulders and is wrapped about the legs. On her knees she holds a nude boy whose right hand 
rested on her neck; his left hand also was raised. The seat has no definite shape. The back surface 
is rudely worked with a point, but is smoother towards the edge. The dowel hole is 0.335 m. above 
the ground line and corresponds to the middle of the breast and also to the fourth dowel hole in the 
first block of the south side (Pallat, A. J. A., p. 183, note 6). The workmanship of the drapery is 
harsh, but not so coarse as that of 83, and the two garments are so treated as to show different 
fabrics. The nude is more softly and carefully treated; cf., in this respect, 66. This fragment was 
found in front of the North Portico. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 186) suggests that Kourotrophos is rep- 
resented. Other suggestions have been Demeter and Iacchus, Athena and Erichthonius, Pandrosus 
and Erichthonius, and a genre scene. This group has often been connected with 11 (see p. 245). 

85. (No. 1076; Pallat 33, 24.) H.0.40m.; Br. 0.26 m.; Th. 0.12 m. Female figure in girded 
sleeved chiton and himation, seated to left leaning back in an armchair. The whole is made up of 
three pieces. The figure seems, since the left breast is somewhat higher than the right, to have held 
the left arm raised and perhaps resting on the back of the chair. The garment has slipped down from 
the right shoulder. The back surface is dressed with a toothed chisel and also worked with a point. 
The front is more carefully treated than that of the other seated figures. The broken dowel hole 
is in the back of the uppermost piece, 0.30—0.31 m. above the original ground line. It is roughly 
cut and somewhat inclined towards the left (as seen from behind). According to Hill (A. J. A., p. 
183, note 6) the dowel hole agrees with the third or fourth hole of the sixth block of the eastern front. 
But those holes are vertical, whereas this is inclined. 

86. (No. 2820; Pallat 33, 25.) H. 0.28 m.; Br. 0.22 m.; Th. 0.11. m. Lower part of a figure, 
probably female, wearing a himation and seated to right (her left) on a seat without a back. The left 
leg was raised much higher than the right. On the left thigh lies a piece of cloth which is squeezed 
together; it may, perhaps, be a part of the himation gathered in the hand. The back surface and 
the under surface are dressed with the toothed chisel. The work is almost as rough as that of 83. 
The fragment has been built into a wall and is much discolored and damaged. 

87. (No. 1078; Pallat 33, 26.) H. 0.39 m.; Br. 0.30 m.; Th. 0.13 m. Female figure seated to 
left on a rock. She wears a sleeved chiton and a himation. She was probably leaning on the rock, 
which has a projection that seems adapted to that purpose. Half of the back is roughly modelled. 
At the right a piece of the edge, which is 0.06 m. wide at the widest point, is cut to a depth of 0.03 m. 
The left edge of this cutting, at the bottom of which folds of drapery are indicated, is straight. The 
rest of the back surface is rudely worked with a point. The dowel hole corresponds to the middle of 


264 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the breast. It isin the fracture, at a height of 0.315 m., is 0.04 m. long and 0.045 m. deep (three drill 
holes), and broken out at the side and at the top. According to Hill (A. J. A., p. 183, note 6) it would 
ft the first hole of block II or the fourth hole of block V of the eastern front. 

88. (Nos. 2821, and 1208; Pallat 34,1.) 2821, H. 0.14 m.; Br. 0.14m.; Th. 0.11 m.; 1208, H. 
0.17 m.; Br. 0.136 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Two pieces which fit together — lower part from the knees 
down — of a female figure in a long chiton which completely covers the feet. She is moving slowly 
to the right. The mass of the garment produces the effect of a channelled column, so that it is hard 
to tell where the right leg is. The projection at the left near the bottom is probably the heel of the 
left foot (cf. 34 and 48). The under surface is rudely worked with a point, as is the back surface, 
except that the latter is smooth at the edge. 

89. (No. 1255; Pallat 34, 2.) H. 0.09 m.; Br. 0.12 m.; Th. 0.095 m. Small fragment — left 
foot and drapery — of a standing or walking female figure turned toward the right and wearing a 
long chiton. The foot, with a sole under it, stands on a plinth, as did, perhaps, the whole figure. The 
back surface is rather finely worked with a point, the under surface somewhat rough. 

90. (No. 1204; Pallat 34, 3.) H.0.12m.; Br. 0.15 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Lowest part of a female 
figure in chiton and himation, in front view, standing with the weight on her left foot. She stands 
on a thin plinth. In this is a hole containing lead. The surfaces at the back and underneath are 
dressed with a toothed chisel. The folds of the chiton are cut deeply, and the projecting parts be- 
tween the deep cuttings are enlivened by small folds (ef. 13). 

91. (No. 1242; Pallat 34, 4.) H. 0.16 m.; Br. 0.12 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Fragment — from the 
pubes to the knees — of a man in front face, standing with, apparently, somewhat bent knees, with 
the weight on the left leg and the right somewhat advanced. Thrown about the thighs is a cloak 
which leaves the pubes bare. The back surface is 0.04 m. wide and contains some holes made with a 
point. The marble flakes off in layers. 

92. (No. 1196; Pallat 34,5.) H.0.22m.; Br.0.14m.; Th. 0.10 m. Middle part of a nude male 
figure in profile to left. The drapery is evidently fastened to a staff which extends diagonally across 
the upper part of the fragment. The cylindrical (or nearly cylindrical) object about which the dra- 
pery passes is regarded by Casson as the left arm of this figure; 
Schoene thought it was the arm of another figure standing behind 
this one; and Pallat declares its lines are so straight that it cannot 
be an arm at all. He calls it a thicker staff and (A. J. A., p. 187 
and note) interprets the figure as a man holding a mast and spar. 
The thick staff, however, seems to have ended in a rounded point 
in the present fracture. If that is the case, it could hardly be a 
mast. Schoene thought the man was leaning backwards, and Pallat, 
after having assumed (Ant. Denk.) that he was lying down, seems 
(A.J.A., p. 187, note) to have doubts about it. Figure 161 shows the person in a recumbent posture 
and this is the mounting in the Acropolis Museum. Pallat’s reasons for his first assumption are the 
direction of the folds of the drapery and the rough under surface of the left leg. Casson says the figure 
might well have been seated. The upper part of the body is bent forward and turned towards the 
figure’s left, so that it faces the front, but the figure is hardly bent to a sitting posture, nor are there 
any traces of a seat. The left arm of the figure probably, as Pallat says, embraced the whole mass 
—thick staff and drapery,— or the man may have been lying down and leaning on his elbow. Pallat 
further (A. J. A.) suggests that the man may have been raising or lowering a mast and sail, or may 
have been lying shipwrecked upon them. He thinks this figure and the next (93) might form parts 
of a scene of the sack of Troy. The back surface is rudely worked with a point and shows traces of 
a toothed chisel. From it three drill holes which lie close together, and are broken out, pass obliquely 
into the broken surface of the piece of drapery. They do not seem to have formed the dowel hole. 


Figure 161. FRAGMENT 92: 
RECUMBENT 


THE SCULPTURES 265 


In the rough under surface of the left leg are also three drill holes. The nude parts of this fragment 
exhibit the same full, round forms as the boy of 84. The marble has very large crystals, and Pallat 
says it seems to be Parian. 

93. (No. 1262; Pallat 34, 6.) H. 0.20 m.; Br. 0.14 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Lower part of a female 
figure in chiton and himation, who is kneeling with her left leg bent under her and her right leg out 
at the side. The object by which she has sunk down is explained by Pallat as the base of a statue 
of a deity; but there is little evidence for this. The front surface is smooth. A broad, rounded de- 
pression, 0.025 m. deep and 0.05 m. wide, is made in the upper side. There seem to be steps at the 
bottom. Here also the front and the top are smooth. The upper edge of the base is wanting. The 
back surface is roughly worked with a point; four holes are drilled in it, each 0.01 m. in diameter and 
0.028 m. deep. The work of this fragment is very superficial; many drill holes have been left in it. 
The upper part of the figure stands clear from the background. 

94. (No. 2627; Pallat 34, 7.) H.0.12m.; Br. 0.10 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Lowest part of a female 
figure in long chiton. The fragment has the columnar appearance of 88. The back surface is some- 
what rough. Casson observes that the figure is on a very small scale, and doubts if it belongs to the 
frieze. 

95. (No. 1217; Pallat 34,8.) H.0.13m.; Br. 0.08 m.; Th. 0.08 m. Part of left leg, below the 
knee, of a draped figure moving towards the left. The back surface is dressed with the toothed chisel. 
Pallat (A. J. A., p. 183, note 2) suggests that this and 72 may belong to the same figure. 

96. (No. 1287b; Pallat 34,9.) H.0.17m.; Br. 0.13m.; Th. 0.11 m. Lower part, from the 
knee down, of a female figure in a long chiton, who stands with her weight on her right foot. The 
surface at the back and that underneath are smeared with plaster of Paris. This fragment was 
formerly joined to 41, to which it does not belong. 

97. (No. 4861; Pallat, A. J. A., pp. 176 ff., figs. 3-8.) H. 0.255 m.; Br. 0.21 m.; Th. 0.155 m. 
Draped female figure seated, or crouching, to left (her right). The head and part of the drapery on 
the shoulders are wanting. The right arm is not clearly distinguishable and was, perhaps, never 
clearly carved. Perhaps it was extended, with the hand resting on the right knee. The drapery 
above the right knee (over the right arm) is broken. The lower part of the left thigh is chipped off. 
The right knee is drawn up, so that the right leg from the knee down is nearly vertical. The left 
knee is so bent that the left foot (now wanting) passed in front of the right foot. The right foot was 
never visible. The woman did not sit on the ground, but on something (now gone) which raised her 
very slightly, 0.01 m. to 0.015 m. The left arm is bent across the body. A small part of the original 
lower edge is preserved under the feet. The work was apparently rather careless, and the surface 
is considerably weathered. The dowel hole, one side of which is broken out, is 0.16 m. from the bot- 
tom of the fragment. Its height is 0.05 m. It consists of three drill holes, with the stone between 
them broken out. There are traces of a pour channel. Pallat (A.J. A., p. 176, note 2) says this dowel 
hole agrees exactly with the first dowel hole (from the left) in the first (from the west) block on the 
south side of the eastern portico. At the right of the dowel hole, as seen from the back, are three 
small holes, about 0.003 m. in diameter and 0.013 m., 0.011 m., and 0.013 m. deep, arranged in a 
triangle. Beginning near the top of the dowel hole, and slightly to the right, is a nearly horizontal 
cutting, 0.045 m. long and 0.015 m. deep. Its breadth cannot be determined, as the stone is broken 
away. This cutting must have formed a slot between the back of the figure and the Eleusinian stone. 
At a distance of 0.013 m. from the right end of this cutting is a small hole like the other three, but 
only 0.009 m. deep. The proportions of this fragment make it proper to assign it to the frieze of 
the cella. 

98. (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England; not previously published.) H.0.15 m.; Br. 
0.155 m.; Th. 0.092 m. Lower part of a figure in a very long garment. The figure was probably 
standing and turned slightly toward the spectator’s left. The leg is heavy and clumsy, as is also the 


266 THE ERECHTHEUM 


foot over which the drapery falls. At the right the folds of the drapery continue to the rear surface. 
At the left the fragment is broken off. The back is fairly well wrought, apparently with a toothed 
chisel. About 0.045 m. from the left edge is a cutting, the left side of which is approximately vertical 
and smooth, extending 0.02 m. upward from the lower surface. The top of the cutting is about 
0.005 m. wide. The right side slopes downward in a wide curve to the lower surface, which it reaches 
at varying distances (0.025-0.045 m.) from the left edge. The cutting extends inward 0.02- 
0.025 m. from the present front at this point, perhaps as much as 0.04 m. from the original front. 
The purpose of the cutting is not clear. It appears to be ancient, but cannot have served to fasten 
the figure to the architrave. It may have served for the attachment of some metal accessory or, 
possibly, of a small bit of marble. A round hole about the middle of the lower surface appears to 
be ancient, though it is now filled with a wooden plug. The proportions indicate that this fragment 
belonged to the frieze of the cella. 

The fragment was brought from Athens in 1841. I owe my knowledge of it to Dr. Paton. His 
attention was called to this fragment in 1914 by the Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Mr. 8. C. 
Cockerell, who kindly allowed a cast and a photograph to be made. Its connection with the frieze 
of the Erechtheum had already been recognized by Mr. W. R. Lethaby. The fragment is mentioned 
in Casson’s Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, p. 19, note 2. 

99. (No. 2473; hitherto unpublished. Identified by A. Panagiotakis.) H. 0.23 m.; Br. 0.16 m.; 
Th. 0.115 m. Lower part of a draped female figure, preserved from the middle of the thighs to the 
base. Left knee and left foot missing. The figure is leaning to the right (its left) with the weight on 
the left leg. The treatment of the drapery is good, recalling that of 77. The rear surface is smoothly 
finished with the toothed chisel. No trace of dowel hole. This fragment undoubtedly belongs to the 
frieze, and I think to the smaller series. Hill accepts it. (Blegen.) 

100. (No. 1271; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.23m.; Br. 0.10m.; Th. 0.09m. Left side, 
abdomen, and thigh of a standing male figure. The figure leans over slightly to his right, resting his 
weight on his left leg. Perhaps he was leaning on something. A fold of drapery hangs down across 
the left shoulder and passes behind the thigh, and there is a trace of drapery near the navel to the 
left. The drapery is carried around on the back, but only carelessly indicated. The muscles are 
rendered very prominently, though this effect has apparently been increased by weathering. The 
surface is in bad condition, having suffered presumably from fire, as well as from lime incrustation. 
On the back I believe I see a faint trace of the dowel cutting, at a point corresponding approximately 
to the left breast. The figure probably belongs to the frieze and to the smaller series. Hill is in- 
clined to accept it. (Blegen.) This fragment and the two following were found in 1917 in the small 
museum by Dr. Blegen, who has also furnished the photographs and descriptions of them. 

101. (No. 3277; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.37 m.; Br. 0.125m.; Th. 0.10m. Lower part of 
a female figure, preserved from below the breast to the base. Missing: breasts and everything above, 
arms, feet, and part of the left side. The figure stands facing front. She wears chiton and himation. 
The latter hangs down from the right shoulder and has kolpos and apoptygma (Fig. 162). The sur- 
face is in bad condition, but the work was originally good. A small part of the bottom surface is pre- 
served, including part of a drilled pin hole. The rear surface is worked fairly smooth with the point. 
On the top of the fracture in the back are traces of a dowel hole ca. 0.025 m. wide. This fragment 
clearly belongs to the frieze. Hill agrees. (Blegen.) 

102. (No number; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.10 m.; Br. 0.11 m.; Th. 0.08 m. Left shoulder 
and part of breast of a female figure, probably in rapid motion to the left. There are traces of a 
sleeved chiton. The himation flies out behind over the left shoulder. The back is roughly worked 
with the point. No traces of a dowel hole. I think this belongs to the frieze. Hill agrees. (Blegen.) 
In 1913 this fragment bore the almost illegible number 4865, and it is described, not quite accu- 
rately, under this number by Casson. A fragment of the Parthenon frieze (Casson, No. 1191) is 
now numbered 4865. 


THE SCULPTURES 267 


103. (Berlin Museum; hitherto unpublished.) Greatest length, 0.08 m.; greatest. thickness, 
0.03m. Left foot of a human being. Fully wrought on both sides. Near the right end (as seen from 
the back), under the front part of the foot, is an oblique drill hole (Fig. 163). The foot is evidently 
placed on a rock, and may belong to a figure in motion; cf. 89. 

This fragment, the following one, and also 110 and 111, have been for some years in the Berlin 
Museum. They are mentioned in the Verzeichniss der antiken Skulpturen as follows: “884 a-—d. 
Kleine Bruchstiicke der Friesfiguren vom Erechtheion, darunter ein 
Pferdeschenkel und ein menschlicher Fuss.” For the photographs, 
measurements, and descriptions of these four frag- 
ments I am indebted to Dr. Karl Anton Neuge- 
bauer, who furnished them at the request of 
Geheimrat Ludwig Pallat. The fragments are so 
small that it cannot be determined with any cer- 
tainty whether they belonged to the frieze of the 
cella or to that of the North Portico. 

104. (Berlin Museum; hitherto unpublished.) 
Length, 0.122m. Irregular fragment. On two sides, which meet at right 
angles, are plane surfaces for contact with other surfaces (Anschluss- 
flichen), and their position determines the interpretation 
of the fragment. Neither of these surfaces can have been 
at the right of the fragment, for that would imply that a 
piece of relief was there attached, and there is no evidence 
of anything of the kind in the frieze of the Erechtheum. 
(Indeed, since the marble figures were carved separately 
and attached to the background, such piecing of the mar- 
ble would be needless, because a figure could perfectly well 
extend over adjacent parts of two slabs of the Eleusinian 
stone.) Moreover, the smaller of the two plane surfaces 
cannot have been attached to the back-ground, as the 
projection of the relief would in that case have been too 


Ficure 163. 
FRAGMENT 103: BACK 


great. The longer plane surface, upon which 1260 is ae 2 
er 101: written in black (Fig. 164), must, therefore, have been BACK 
aie ‘the back, and the other the bottom, of the fragment, 


which is, then, to be regarded as a thin piece split off from front to 
back, of which only the right side of the surface that was to be visible is now preserved. If this is 
correct, the thickness from front to back is 0.058 m. At the front the fragment is very narrow, and 
at the back it attains a breadth of 0.035m. The irregular, wavy surface precludes the interpretation 
of the fragment as a part of an organic being; it is probably a piece of rock from the seat of a figure 
such as 87. Our plate represents the fragment as seen, not from the front, but from the right. 

105. (No. 1236 b; Pallat 34, 10.) H. 0.20 m.; Br. 0.24 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Breast and part of the body 
of a horse, standing quietly and turned towards the right. The projection at the left, on the flank 
of this horse, is without doubt the beginning of a second one. The back surface is worked with a 
point in the middle, smooth at the edge. In it is a dowel hole (0.04 m. long and 0.04 m. deep), broken 
out at the left; above this a drill hole which cannot have been part of the pour channel. The frag- 
ment does not belong to the following one. Pallat (A. J. A., p. 181) thinks this belongs to the frieze 
of the cella. 

106. (No. 12385; Pallat 34, 11.) H.0.32m.; Br. 0.55m.; Th. 0.16m. Remains of a standing 
or slowly moving pair of horses (stallions), with the chariot and a nude man standing behind the 


268 THE ERECHTHEUM 


chariot. That the man stands behind the chariot, not (as Schoene assumed) in it, may be deduced 
from the fact that the chariot is not broken underneath, but is smooth. The stump that appears 
under the chariot is the left knee of the man. Above the rear part of the rear horse is a projection 
which may possibly be the remains of a tree trunk. The vertical (though apparently slightly curved) 
projection on the chariot is probably not (as Schoene thought) a remnant of the horse’s tail, but rather 
of the wheel of the chariot. The tail seems to have gone more upwards. The right hind leg of the 
horse is connected with the chariot by a sort of flat moulding. The two curves in the upper edge of 
the chariot are part of the design, not fractures. The inside of the chariot is hollowed out by means 
of drill holes. The horse in the background stands so far forward to the right that its hind quarters 
were on a line with the shoulders of the horse in the foreground; it should perhaps be thought of as 
not yet harnessed to the chariot. The back surface is finely roughened with the toothed chisel and 
worked over with the point besides. The dowel hole lies in the direction of the vertical fracture that 
goes through the horse’s body (several drill holes one above the other); it is 0.04 m. long, 0.015 m. 
broad, and 0.04 m. deep, and its lower end, which corresponds to the small hole in the line of fracture 
in the front, is about 0.27 m. above the ground level to be assumed for the horses. There is a hori- 
zontal pin hole, 0.04 m. deep, under the chariot, just forward of the remains of the wheel. Pallat 
(A. J. A., p. 184) places this fragment near the middle of the eastern front (cf. zbid., p. 190, note). 

107. (No. 1282; Pallat 34, 12.) H.0.26m.; Br. 0.25m.; Th. 0.08m. Fragment of a quadriga 
galloping towards the left. Of the horse in the foreground the broken fore legs and the breast are 
preserved, of the second the breast and the beginning of the neck. In addition, on the front side of 
the first horse, traces of another horse belonging to the quadriga are visible. The back surface is 
rudely worked with a point. In the surface of the fracture at the right is a large broken dowel hole 
(four drill holes), 0.05 m. long, 0.05 m. deep, and 0.115 m. from the lower edge of the fragment (i. e., 
about 0.25 m. from the presumed ground line). A pour channel enters from above. Schoene be- 
lieved that this and the following fragment belonged together, and Pallat (Ant. Denk.) followed him. 
Later (A. J. A., p. 181 and note) Pallat rightly says that the two cannot be joined, as we should 
then have a team of five horses. Pallat (J. c.) ascribes to the western frieze of the North Portico this 
fragment and the two following, to the frieze of the cella the first two fragments of horses. 

108. (No. 1280; Pallat 34, 13.) H. 0.385 m.; Br. 0.31 m.; Th. 0.17 m. Fragment of the stal- 
lions of a quadriga galloping towards the left. The breast and the beginning of the fore legs of the 
first horse and remnants of the bodies and hind legs of the second and third are preserved. In the 
fracture at the right, 0.17 m. from the lower edge of the right hind leg of the second horse, is a hole 
(broken out) which cannot be a dowel hole, because it comes, not from behind, but from the right. 
Corresponding to it in the middle of the left-hand fracture is a hole 0.045 m. long and 0.015 m. wide, 
containing some lead. Both holes probably served to fasten pieces which were attached. A third 
hole, in which are traces of rust, is bored from below into the left hind leg of the rear horse. A pin 
hole in a slight elevation on the back of the second horse and another in the breast of the first horse 
may have served for the attachment of reins. The back surface is finely dressed with the toothed 
chisel and in parts worked with the point. 

109. (No. 1133; Pallat, A. J. A., pp. 178 ff., figs. 15-18.) H. 0.125 m.; Br. 0.217 m.; Th. 0.125 m. 
Rear part of a pair of horses facing left. Pallat (l. c., p. 181 and note) says that this cannot be 
combined with any of the known fragments of horses. 

110. (Berlin Museum; hitherto unpublished.) Greatest length, from the fracture of the leg to 
the rear part above, 0.168 m.; greatest thickness, 0.067 m. Hinder part of a horse. At the back is 
a piece of the original flat surface, worked with a point. The back of the existing fragment of the 
leg is only roughly worked. At the edge of the belly two drill holes remain. The fragment appears 
to be part of a horse in motion (cf. 107 and 108) and is therefore reproduced in a raised position. 

111. (Berlin Museum; hitherto unpublished.) H. 0.071 m. ; Th. 0.027 m. Leg of an animal (?). 


(D) FROM BEHIND. 


D 


(A) FROM LEFT. (B) FROM FRONT. (C) FROM RIGHT. 


FRAGMENT 112 


Figure 165. 


[ 269 ] 


270 THE ERECHTHEUM 


One is inclined to regard this as the hind leg of a horse, but the sinew at the left, separated by a 
depression or furrow from the rest, seems hardly to fit this interpretation. 

112. (Sir John Soane’s Museum, London; hitherto unpublished; Fig. 165). H. 0.37 m. (at back, 
0.35 m.); Br. 0.14m.; Th. 0.048 m.; across neck from side to side, 0.04 m. Fragment, from the 
neck to the knee, of a youthful female figure moving toward the right, with the weight borne momen- 
tarily by the left leg. She wears a sleeveless chiton fastened at her right shoulder and girt, with 
overfall, about her waist. In the girdle are two drill holes 0.003 m. in diameter, probably for attach- 
ing a clasp or buckle. The bare right arm extended downward, outward, and forward; probably the 
forearm was bent forward, as it would otherwise have projected too far from the background. Figure 
1658 shows the fragment approximately as it would have appeared to a spectator standing directly 
in front of the frieze. The work is excellent. The proportions indicate that the figure belonged to the 
frieze of the North Portico. At the back, the upper part is worked with a point, the lower part with 
a, toothed chisel as well. The broken dowel hole in the left shoulder is about 0.043 m. deep and about 
0.035 m. high. 

The fragment was identified by Mr. Bernard Ashmole, of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, 
who kindly sent me photographs and measurements through Mr. A. M. Woodward, Director of the 
British School at Athens. These reached me after the heliotype plates were already made and the 
text of this chapter was in type. I have, therefore, inserted description and illustrations at this point. 


APPENDIX 


The following fragments resemble more or less closely those that certainly formed parts of the 
frieze of the Erechtheum. Some of them may well belong to the frieze, but cannot be ascribed to it 
with certainty; others are mentioned here because, although they do not belong to the frieze, they 
have been connected with it more or less tentatively by previous writers, or by those who have 
studied the frieze in the Museum at Athens. 

A. (No. 1236a; Fig. 166.) This fragment is published and described in Casson’s Catalogue. At 
my request Dr. Blegen examined it, and I am indebted to him for the photograph published here- 
with and the following description. H. 0.135 m.; Br. 0.165 m.; Th. 0.155 m. This is a very 
curious piece. Preserved: a right leg and foot standing directly behind a drum- 
like object, on the same circular base with the latter. Casson seems not to 
have understood the position of the fragment, since the illustration he gives 
(p. 194) and his measurements indicate that he took the left side as the front. 
At the extreme left’ of the fragment, as shown in his illustration, is preserved 
a small part of the presumable rear surface. It is roughly worked with the point. 
This shows that the drum-like object is the front of the piece and that the leg 
was behind. The drum-like object is worked in the round, the figure behind 
and to the right of it was in low relief. The height of the relief at the fracture, 
where the left leg is broken away, is 0.082 m. (Cf. 95, which might be the 

nwne left leg of a similar figure.) 

Rice The drum-like object measures 0.11 m. in diameter from front to back, and 

0.095 m. from side to side, and is, therefore, not circular. From the front, how- 
ever, it would appear to be circular. On the flat top of the drum-like object and hanging over the 
front side is the lower end of a piece of drapery, which presumably hung down from the (out- 
stretched) left arm. This drapery falls over the drum in a spiraliform fold. The figure evidently 
faced to the left and was engaged in doing something over the drum-like object. The figure was 
apparently not standing, but kneeling or stooping or hurrying toward the left. 

The marble is rather discolored and much darker than most of the fragments of the frieze (re- 


THE SCULPTURES 271 


sembling 86 in color). It is perfectly possible, however, that it comes from the frieze ; in which 
case I should guess that it belonged to the larger series. 

Dr. Blegen tells me that Mr. Casson agrees that the fragment should face as in our photograph, 
that is, with the drum-like object toward the front, and not as in his illustration. Dr. Blegen adds, 
“but of course it is only a possible, not a certain, attribution to the frieze.” | 

B. (No. 1263; hitherto unpublished; Fig. 167.) H. 0.305 m.; Br. 0.175 m.; Th. 0.09 m. Female 
figure seated to right on what seems to be a rock. The upper part of her body is turned to face 
the front. Her right arm is bent across her body, the hand disappearing under the left arm, which is 
bent and originally extended diagonally across the knees. She wears a chiton which is pinned at the 
left arm and girt at the waist. A himation seems to be draped over the left shoulder, and the heavy 
folds under the right hand may belong to this. The head, the entire 
right side, and the lower part of the figure are missing. Casson 
doubts the attribution to the frieze. Dr. Blegen writes: “The scale 
is right, and the rear surface, though coarsely worked, implies that 
the figure was set against a background. I thought I saw traces of 
a dowel hole, ca. 0.04 m. high and 0.04 m. deep, about level with the 
right breast. There isa drill hole, 0.055 m. deep, from the rear face 
on the broken right edge to a point 0.10 m. above the bottom of the 


Ficure 168. FIGuRE 169. 
Figure 167. FRAGMENT B FRAGMENT C FRAGMENT D 


fragment. The work is very ‘hard’ and strikingly different from that of the certain pieces. I con- 
sider its ascription to the frieze very doubtful, but barely possible. Hill agrees to this.” 

C. (No. 1266; Fig. 168.) H.0.14m.; Br. 0.10 m.; Th.0.05m. Mr. Casson’s description in his 
Catalogue is as follows: ‘‘Fragment of a wing covered with feathers which are of an average size of 
0.05 m. X 0.015 m. in breadth. The feathers are in three rows, each row overlapping the other. The 
feathers of the middle row are of an average length of 0.05 m. The fragment is only roughly worked 
at the back and sides and shows no trace of having been joined to any other fragment, but it prob- 
ably belongs to No. 2825 [our 4]. It cannot, of course, be definitely assigned to the frieze.” 

Dr. Blegen writes: “I am absolutely convinced that this fragment of a wing does not belong 
to 4. The marble seems different, the workmanship is not the same, the rough treatment of the rear 
surface is in quite another style, the scale is too large (there were originally at least four rows of 
feathers), and last but not least, I feel certain that 4 is not a winged figure.’’ (See under 4 above.) 
In another letter Dr. Blegen writes that Mr. Casson is no longer willing to assert that the fragment 
of wing belongs to 4 (No. 2825), but thinks it may rather come from the Nike balustrade. 

D. (No number; hitherto unpublished; communicated by Dr. Carl W. Blegen; Fig. 169.) 
H. 0.16 m.; Br. 0.06 m.; Th. 0.10 m. Left arm of standing figure. It is held out somewhat from 
the side, with the drapery hanging over it. It is worked almost in the round. The scale and work 
are right for the frieze, and it may belong to it, but there is no certain indication. (Blegen.) 


272 THE ERECHTHEUM 


E. (No. 1269; Fig. 170.) H. 0.22 m.; Br. 0.13 m.; Th. 0.08 m. The lower part of a standing 
draped figure facing the front. Only the right leg from knee to ankle and the left leg from the mid- 
dle of the thigh to a point between knee and ankle are preserved. Casson says “the attribution of 
this fragment is uncertain.” Dr. Blegen writes: “Very sketchy and impressionistic work. Hill 
rejects it, and, I think, rightly. There are some slight indications that the figure had a background 
on the same piece.” 

F. (No. 1239a; Fig. 171.) H.0.17m.; Br. 0.13 m.; Th. 0.07 m. Torso, from neck to waist, of 
a male figure standing facing the front. He wears a himation draped over his left shoulder and 
under his (missing) right arm. The left arm extended forward from the elbow, but is now broken 
off. In the fracture is a hole for the attachment of the wrist; the back surface is broken. Casson says 
“this fragment is probably not from the frieze; the treatment of the drapery seems different,” and 
Blegen and Hill agree that its assignment to the frieze is only a bare possibility. 

G. (No. 3143; Fig. 172.) Lower part of a draped figure standing to front. It is almost certain 
that this does not belong to the frieze. (Blegen.) The figure was carved entirely in the round. 

H. (No. 1169.) H. 0.29 m.; Br. 0.23 m.; Th. 0.11 m. In his Catalogue Mr. Casson says: “It 
is uncertain whether this is a fragment of the Erechtheium frieze.”’ He has since decided to reject 
it. Dr. Blegen writes: “This fragment certainly does not belong to the frieze. It is from a figure 
approximately twice as high as those of the frieze. The fragment seems to have been split off from 
a much larger piece (perhaps the Parthenon frieze), to judge from the present back, which is not the 
original surface.” The fragment represents a piece of drapery. 

I. (No. 1301.) H. 0.235 m.; Br. 0.17 m.; Th. 0.14 m. - Fragment of a draped figure, preserved 
from the thighs to below the knees. The figure was standing with the weight resting on the right leg. 
In his Catalogue Mr. Casson says the figure ‘“‘is perhaps not from the frieze,” and he has since agreed 
with Dr. Blegen and Dr. Hill that it cannot belong to the frieze. The scale is much larger than that 
of the figures from the Erechtheum. 

J. (No. 4225; hitherto unpublished; Fig. 173.) H. 0.08m.; Br. 0.09m.; Th. 0.08m. Left 
shoulder and part of breast of a female figure. A himation hangs over the shoulder, and traces of a 
chiton are visible on the breast. The figure faces towards the front. The drapery is carried around 
on the back as in 58 (No. 284). No trace of a dowel hole. The fragment may be from the frieze. This 
fragment was found by Dr. Blegen in the small museum on the Acropolis in 1917. He has furnished 
the photographs and the description. 

K. (No number; hitherto unpublished; Fig. 174.) Foot. No indication of the front, that is to 
say, of the side from which the fragment should be viewed. It is of the right scale and work and may 
belong to the frieze, but this attribution is not certain. This fragment was found in the southeast 
part of the Erechtheum under the Christian pavement, during excavations conducted in 1914 by the 
American School. The photograph and description are due to Dr. Blegen. 

L. (Berlin Museum, Inv. 1768; Bruno Schroeder, Alkamenes-Studien, 79tes Winckelmannspro- 
gramm der archaeologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, pl. I, fig. 5.) H. 0.09 m. This small youthful 
female head (Fig. 175 after Schroeder) was acquired by the Berlin Museum from a private pos- 
sessor. It is said to have been found in the débris (Schutt) of the Acropolis at Athens. The nose is 
wanting, and the back is split off. The full forms of mouth and cheeks, the waves of the hair, which 
is parted and held in place by a band, the calmness and charm of the expression, the treatment of the 
eyes, and the general technique all show that the work belongs to the latter part of the fifth century 
B.c. The material is Pentelic marble, and the size (chin to hair 0.065 m.) agrees with the dimensions 
of the female figures of the North Portico; the fragment may, therefore, belong to the frieze. But, 
since the back of the fragment shows merely a fracture, there is no indication that the figure to 
which it belongs was carved separately to be attached to a background. It may have been a relief 
of the usual kind or a statuette. The ascription of the head to the frieze of the Erechtheum is, then, 


Figure 170. FRAGMENT E Figure 171. FRAGMENT F Figure 172. FRAGMENT G 


Figure 173. FRAGMENT J: (A) FRONT. (B) SIDE Figure 174. FRAGMENT K: (A) FRONT. (B) SIDE 


A B 


Figure 175. FRAGMENT L: (A) FRONT. (B) SIDE 


[ 273 ] 


Fi 
ii 


SS 7 = 
FSS 
SSS 3S = 
———— = 


SS 


SS 


> 


ip ty i i 7 - - « : o x ce 
WK : ) K N\ iy , Sty ay f 

\ tite i 
33 36 


KY Th wd a 4 
4 Sys \ 1 
Nah vay aT. 


Figure 176. LOST FRAGMENTS: ’E®. ’APX. 1837, NOS. 33, 36, 37, 43 


[ 274 ] 


Se 
= a 


Ses 


SEES 
sSE& 


jes 


SS 


CES 
Ore = 
ae: 


ee 


as 


Figure 177. FRAGMENTS NOT CERTAINLY IDENTIFIED: Rd. ’APX, 1837, NOS. 41, 46, 47, 48 


rn aaN 


f (7 
RUT Ura (CON ») 
ee ay 
{ iE 


47 


PUN Ne 


Vie. SA Nay 
DY OK 
a , CAs if \\ 

" a} ON I A) 

: a i! ie 


Mae eG ‘iy OM AS 


Mas sep 


aN 


) y a 
No aa i 
‘ ere 

A 


} Mp 
py Ny 


mia 


ie ay hoe 


We we 


48 


i - : AN \}) \ 
2 : “t “ a ; 
ie 


[ 275 ] 


276 THE ERECHTHEUM 


doubtful. Schroeder finds a marked resemblance between this head and the much mutilated head of 
the so-called Procne (Casson, pp. 257 ff.) in the Acropolis Museum, which he ascribes to Aleamenes, 
the sculptor whom he is inclined to regard as the author of all the sculptures of the Erechtheum 
(p. 238). Certainly the little head is unusually attractive, but whether it belongs to the frieze of the 


Erechtheum, or not, is quite uncertain. 


Several fragments (Fig. 176) published in the ’E@nyepis “Apxavodoyixn, 1837, and also by Rangabé 
in his Antiquités helléniques are not described above. These are numbers 33, 36 (Rangabé, 84), 37 (Ran- 
gabé, 82), and 43 (Rangabé, 80). None of these can now be identified, and probably all are lost. 
The drawing of No. 33 looks as if the figure stood on a base and was not detached from the back- 
ground; perhaps it did not belong to the frieze. It is the only one among these fragments not repub- 
lished by Rangabé. No. 43 is also republished by Overbeck, Geschichte der griechischen Plastik’, 
fig. 123h. The identification of several other fragments (Fig. 177) is more or less doubtful. No. 41 
(Rangabé, 69) is perhaps our 83 (in which case the draughtsman misunderstood the figure), possibly 
the lower part of 42 drawn from the side, or even 14 (if that happened to lose something of its lower 
part ata later time). Pallat (A.J. A., p. 198, note 1) suggests that it may possibly be the lower part 
of 76. It cannot be, as Casson (Catalogue, No. 1281) suggests, our 82. No. 47 of the ’E¢yyepis has 
been tentatively identified with our 96, the lower part of Rangabé’s 63, but it is also possible that 
it is the Cambridge fragment, 98. That was brought from Athens in 1841, and we know from 
Stephani (Annali, XV, 18438, p. 310) that whereas at that time some of the fragments were collected 
in the Erechtheum itself, others were scattered about on the Acropolis. Under such conditions the 
disappearance of small pieces is easily understood. No. 46 of the ’Edyyuepis (Rangabé, 85) appears 
to be our 8, and No. 48 (Rangabé, 77) our 90. 


A fragment (No. 2286) included by Casson among the fragments of the frieze of the Erechtheum 
is no longer to be found. It is described as follows: ‘‘Female Figure. H. 0.12 m.; Br. 0.10 m.; 
average D. (i.e., Th.) 0.08 m. All that remains is the lower part of a figure showing a girt chiton and 
a himation. Probably a frieze fragment.” Dr. Blegen informs me that the number 2286 is on a 
colossal head in the small museum and is so recorded in the inventory, adding that it was so entered 
before Casson wrote his Catalogue. 

A fragment of relief (No. 1236), representing the fore parts, lacking the heads and the lower por- 
tions of the legs, of three horses moving slowly to left, is described in Casson’s Catalogue, though not 
among the sculptures of the Erechtheum. He remarks: “It is unlikely that this is an Erechtheium 
frieze fragment, as this style of relief is, as far as one can tell, alien to the Erechtheium sculptures.” 
He might well have expressed himself more positively, for the style is totally different from that of 
the horses of our frieze, to which it cannot by any possibility belong. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


In the summer of 409 B.c. a commission, appointed to have charge of the building of the 
Erechtheum, prepared a detailed report on the state of the unfinished temple, including an 
inventory of the materials lying on the site. A large part of this report is preserved on a 
marble stele found by Chandler on the Acropolis in 1765. It shows that the construction 
of the building, which had been begun either in the last years of the Periclean era, or 
during the peace of Nicias, was resumed in 409 B.c. after an interruption due in all proba- 
bility to the disastrous Sicilian campaign of 415-412 B.c. Other fragments record expen- 
ditures upon this work. All the extant inscriptions belong to the last period of building. 
They may conveniently be grouped under four headings: 


I. Tor Report or THE Commission. Nos. I-VII 


The Chandler stele, II, is incomplete at the bottom; but the missing portion is in part 
preserved on the small fragments, III-VII, in Athens. Both faces of the stele were in- 
scribed; its obverse contained the report; on its reverse were recorded specifications for 
work remaining to be done. No. I is included under this heading, since it has been held 
to be a fragment of the decree appointing the commission and authorizing the resumption 
of the operations. 


Il. Tue Accounts or 409/8 B.c. Nos. VIII-XII 


These accounts were inscribed on two contiguous stelae, each with five columns of 
writing. One fragment (VIII) is opisthographic; the reverse of another (XI) is blank. 
From this it appears that the accounts were too long to be contained on both faces of one 
stele, and were continued on the reverse of a second stele which was added later. The five 
fragments, VIII—XII, have been identified with certainty as belonging to these accounts. 
They record work on the frieze, cornice, and pediments, the making of a wooden coffered 
ceiling, and the laying of a portion of the roof. 


III. Tue Accounts or 408/7 s.c. Nos. XITI-XXV 


The accounts of this year occupied the face of a series of thin slabs, set up in three 
tiers against a wall. Nos. XIJI-XX certainly belong to them, and so in all probability 
do the small fragments XXI-XXV. The date is fixed by the mention of the archon Euk- 
temon in the heading. The extant portions include, among other items, payments for 
the channelling of the east columns, for the making of a wooden ceiling, and for the carv- 


ing of figures for the frieze. 
277 


278 THE ERECHTHEUM 


IV. Fracments or Accounts SuBSEQUENT TO 408/7 B.c. Nos. XXVI-XXVIII 


These three fragments are from slabs of the same thickness as those of the previous 
accounts, and may have been set up next to them against the same wall. Nos. XXVII and 
XXVIII have been shown to fit together; and the inscription, which is in the Ionic alpha- 
bet, is dated in 406/5 and 405/4 B.c., if the name of the archon Alexias has been correctly 
restored in the lower of the two fragments. No. X XVI may be assigned to 407/6 B.c. 


The evidence for this classification of the inscriptions and for the order of the fragments 
is discussed in the introductions to the several parts. The text of each inscription is pub- 
lished in facsimile, as well as in a restored minuscule transcription accompanied by a trans- 
lation.! For the sake of completeness lists of variant readings by earlier editors are added. 

The commentary is not intended to be exhaustive, except in so far as it seeks to bring 
out all the data contained in the inscriptions which can be used as evidence for the restora- 
tion of the building. In some instances members which are entirely missing could be drawn 
with certainty on the plates from the epigraphical evidence alone. More often the solutions 
adopted are hypotheses, some being highly probable, others merely plausible. Where the 
evidence is manifestly inadequate, as in the passages dealing with the coffered ceilings of 
the interior, a solution has been offered which seems to take the fullest account of all 
available evidence. It has not proved feasible to discuss all the alternative solutions 
which have been published, or which have suggested themselves in the course of the work.” 


1 The facsimiles were made with the help of photographs taken at one-half of the actual size. The letters were 
traced in pencil on the photographic prints, which were then bleached. After the copies thus obtained had been com- 
pared with the originals, and corrected, the letters were redrawn in ink. The use of this mechanical method insured 
accuracy in the spacing of the letters. The facsimiles are reproduced at approximately one-third of the actual size 
of the inscriptions. 

? Published commentaries which have proved useful are cited in the text. The writer of this chapter has received 
numerous helpful suggestions from Dr. B. H. Hill for which only this general acknowledgment can be made. To Dr. 
L. B. Holland he is indebted for permission to use theories which have not yet been published, as well as for assistance 
in the revision of the translations. His thanks are due also to Mr. A. H. Smith for photographs of the two inscriptions 
in the British Museum (Nos. I, II), to Dr. Kurt Miller for a photograph, squeezes, and a transcription of the 
fragment (No. XII) discovered by him, and to Mr. Ashton Sanborn for photographs of some of the small fragments 
in Athens. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 279 


Part I. Tue Report or 409 B.c. 


Nat. Mus, Dinsmoor J.-M, Other publications 
A 21 LG 2 B0ret? 121 

o B 29 LG., I, 3220 = I, 372 
6665 C 22b T.G; I, 8226 = T7,372 
6735 D 22a I.G., 1, Suppl., 322, p. 152 = [?, 372 
6662 a F a 1.G., P*, 872 
6693 * a 1.G., 1, 414 = T2, 967 
6662 a F ey Unpublished 
6662 E 23 1.G., I, 282 and Suppl., p. 73 = 2, 372 


PAOXS E Nitta Fa « 
SPS le eae ie WANS: 
Eko Nl Agim omee 

Bees See Iles 

AOGENA | ONM|I < 
oS | SYNIE TAM 
S|ASZHOAPXITE 
NTOMENKAILT 
NEPAONO €A4 
TAKA CAS 
KRZAN LY yo: 


Ficurek 178. FACSIMILE OF INSCRIPTION I 


10 10 


I. Block of white marble in the British Museum (Elgin Collection), 0.267 m. high, 


0.254 m. wide. Original top and left edge preserved. Stoichedon. Letters 0.01 to 0.012 m. 
high. 


Osann, Sylloge inscriptionum antiquarum graecarum et latinarum. 1,6. Rose, Inscr. gr., 


Pee Cl G., 1,77. Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., 1, 7 (Hicks). I.G., I, 60 (ef. Suppl., p. 18); 
I?, 111. Choisy, Etudes, p. 87. J—M., App. Ep., 21. Dinsmoor, A. 


Facsimile, Figure 178. 


Variant readings. L. 4 “Millerus 102, hoc est TOS, quod restitui” (Boeckh). Hicks rightly re- 


stores Miiller’s reading. L. 8 -v 76 yey «[ 
L. 11 K- - AMP Boeckh. K®“ANTCN Hicks. 


alre[oxevacuévor] Boeckh, Kirchhoff. L. 10 KAvA Boeckh. 


280 THE ERECHTHEUM 


"Kdoxoev Tet Bolder Kal TG Sewor, — ls émpuTaveve, ey Ypapua- 
reve, LplxvOo[s émeorare, “Emuyéves eine — — — — — — — — apxiT- 
éxrova 76 ped. | (ee 
ws dpyirékrloy ee 
5 ‘Adevaloy molOscat = =. ee 
oot cunordplevon — — — — - —~ - - > 7 HO OTT épya- 
alias ho dpxeré[xrov — -— — - —'- - e Te 
y Touey Kab Tele eS ee T6- 
yp épyov, ooo, ole hewlepya (2) 8 = = ae és apio- 


10 tra Kkal Kad\Aliora — - —- - - - --- > OO Or rrr 


Kooayroy| = a eee 


Enough of the decree is left to show that it relates to the building of a temple (ré ved, 
1.3). Muc[9sca:] in line 5 suggests the letting out of the work to contractors, who are ap- 
parently the ovvicrdp[evo.] of line 6. In line 9, as Boeckh observed, a distinction seems to 
be made between different stages of the work. He suggested that the temple might be 
that of Athena Polias. Kirchhoff (I.G., I.c.) identified this decree with the one mentioned 
in inscription II (1. 4: xara 76 doédiopa 76 5éuo hd ’"Emvyeves eiev) and restored line 2 accord- 
ingly. This theory was accepted by Michaelis (Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, p. 362).1 


THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS, First Prytany, 409/8 B.c. 


The inscriptions numbered III-VII have long been recognized as having a close con- 
nection with the large inscription, II, which contains the greater part of the report of the 
commissioners. Nos. II, III, IV, Va, VI were all cut by the same hand; the size of the 
letters, as well as their style, and the spacing of the lines are the same. The letters on VB 
and VII correspond closely in character and size to those on II-VI; but the lines are more 
widely spaced, five lines occupying about the space of six on II-VI. The margin to the 
left of the inscription on VB is of the same width as that to the left of the first column on 
II; and the division of the text into paragraphs by means of horizontal strokes between the 
first letters of two successive lines occurs on VB as well as on IJ. The connection of the small 
fragment III with II was suspected by Pittakis (Ed. ’Apx., 215), and considered obvious 
by Ross (Kunsiblatt, 1840, p. 71) and Rangabé (Ant. hellén., 86). It is to be placed with 
certainty below the first column of II. The contents of IV showed that it also belonged to 
the report, and it seemed probable that the two concluding lines of the same report were 
preserved on Va. The connection of the inscription on the reverse of V (VB) with VII (.G., 
I, 282) was noticed several years ago by Professor Adolf Wilhelm, who caused “‘ Eis I, 282” 


‘ For a new dating of this inscription in 427/6 B.c., see additional Note II, pp. 647 f. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 281 


Resolved by the Council [and People, — — held the prytany, —- - was secretary, ]| 
Smikythos [presided, Epigenes moved, — — —] 
architect of the temple [— — —] 
-ios architect [— — — of the] 
5 Athenians to let out the contracts [—- — —] 
those associated [— — —] 
of the work the architect [— — —] 
the quarrying and the [— — —] 
of the works, those which [are incomplete? — — — in the 
10 best] and fairest manner [— — — .] 


to be painted on the stone. A natural inference would be that all the fragments, II-VII, 
belonged to one tall, narrow stele, inscribed on both faces. But there was the obstacle that 
the opisthographic fragment V is 0.139 m. thick, and that IV has a maximum thickness of 
0.136 m., whereas the large slab, II, has a uniform thickness of only 0.09 m. For the solu- 
tion of this mystery we are indebted to W. B. Dinsmoor. He discovered that the broken 
surface at the bottom of IV exactly fits the top of V, and, what is more important, that the 
fragments III and VII fit together, back to back, their combined thickness being equal to 
that of V!. This proves that the large slab must at some time have been reduced in thickness 
from 0.139 m. to 0.09 m. The occasion on which this mutilation took place was also discov- 
ered by Dinsmoor. Chandler, in his T'ravels in Greece (see App. A, XIII) narrates that he 
found the slab ‘‘at a house not far from the temple of Minerva Polias, placed, with the 
inscribed face exposed, in the stairs.”” He purchased it, and took it to England, but not 
till he had had it ‘‘rendered more portable by a mason.’ ‘The inscription on the reverse, 
which was hidden under a layer of mortar, was thus unwittingly destroyed. The small 
samples of it on VB and VII are all that have survived. 

It remains to add that the tiny fragment VI was identified in 1913 by Dr. Fimmen as 
belonging to the report.’ 

The relative positions of fragments II—V and VII are clearly shown in the accompanying 
drawing (Fig. 179), reproduced from Figure 1 in Dinsmoor’s article. He estimates the 
total height of the stele to have been about 1.835 m. Its width is 0.505 m. It was let into 
a socket in its pedestal, and fastened with lead, as is indicated by a roughening of the sur- 
face of Va, extending 0.06 m. up from the bottom. The place of discovery of the Chandler 
stone has already been noted. Fragment III is said to have been found between the 
Erechtheum and the Parthenon, fragment VII east of the Propylaea. 


1 Dinsmoor, A.J.A., XVII, 1913, pp. 242 ff. 
2 This identification is not accepted in J.G., I2, 967, where the fragment is considered as part of a metrical in- 


scription on a public sepulchral monument. 


[ 282 ] 


ahaa 


aN Ly a S, Nn 
= wy) Ww ihe 4," ioe 
POOR CHIN Sakon 


te 7,4 
Fra w vy DSS fe Cae 


“ut Oe SAN 


Sy y 
NS " aS a 


‘Ge! y= he tr ake " 


S 
: z 
RS WA &wOeG .~ RS 


it c UZ IWwy we 


weer 


me Ys 


eS 


a aaa 4 & ah 
ere dy 2% 7 we ny \\ S Wee 
C= Ws) WS eZ Sry 


ity. 


ky ; 


Reverse 


Figure 179. DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF INSCRIPTIONS II-VII 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 283 


The date of the report is given in the heading as the first prytany of the year 409/8 B.c. 
The inscription on the reverse, which contained specifications for work to be done, is prob- 
ably to be dated early in the same year. 


II. Block of white marble, 1.08 m. high, 0.505 m. wide, 0.09 m. thick. In two pieces. 
Broken at the bottom. Otherwise complete except for a fragment of the right-hand column 
(from line 73 to line 83), which is now missing, but is given in the earlier facsimiles. Back 
roughly tooled (cf. above, p. 281). Not stoichedon. The first seven lines, containing the 
heading, run across the whole width of the stone. The letters are 0.008 to 0.012 m. high. 
The rest of the inscription is arranged in two columns, the letters being 0.007 to 0.01 m. 
high. The block, found by Chandler on the Acropolis in 1765, was taken to England for 
the Society of Dilettanti, who later presented it to the British Museum. 

Chandler, Inscriptiones antiquae, Pt. II, 1, with an engraved facsimile. Wilkins, Athe- 
miensia (1816), pp. 193-218, with a plate. The same in Walpole, Memoirs (1818), pp. 580— 
603, with an engraved facsimile and a plate. The same, Prolus. Archit. (1837), pp. 39-82. 
Visconti, Museo Pio-Clementino, IV (1821), pp. 324-326 (note on column IT, ll. 73-86, with 
a facsimile, pl. B, IV; ‘‘quod repetiit in litt. ad Canovam et duabus commentt. de Coll. 
Elgin, p. 114 sq.’”’ Boeckh). K. O. Miller, De Minervae Poliadis sacris et aede (1820), 
pp. 46-55 (= Kunstarchdologische Werke, I, pp. 186-147). Canina, L’architettura antica, 
Sez. II, L’architettura greca, Pt. II, pp. 73-75 (Greek text and an Italian translation). Rose, 
Inscr. gr., pp. 145-208, pls. XXI-—X XIII. Schneider, Vitruvius, vol. II, pp. 259 ff. Boeckh, 
C.I.G., 160. Von Quast, Das Erechtheion zu Athen (1840), pp. 100-125, translation and 
commentary. Leake, Topography of Athens’, vol. I, pp. 586 ff., text. I.G., 1, 322a; cf. Suppl., 
p. 38; I?, 372. Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., I, 35 (Newton). Choisy, Etudes, pp. 88 ff. Michel, 
Recueil d’inscriptions grecques, 571. J.—M., App. E'p., 22. Roberts-Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, 
II, 117. Dinsmoor, B. 

Facsimile, Pharm XLVII. 


Variant Readings. Col. 1. L.277L-.---- N earlier edd. except Newton. L.31TO..-.----- Oz 
earlier edd. except Newton. L. 42 TOLAKAIEPAOS Chandler. IOIAKAIETL Miller. The 
numeral ||| in the margin is placed by Wilkins to the right of line 41. So also Rose, Kirchhoff. 
L. 61 KYKLOI earlier edd. KYKL-| Newton. L. 69 EKTOS all before Newton. L. 70 TOAAYLO 
Chandler. TOAAYLO Wilkins. AOAAYLO Miiller (Boeckh). L. 71 TONIN Chandler. ION! 
Miiller. TOMIAI Wilkins (Atheniensia and in Walpole, Memoirs, etc.), Boeckh, Kirchhoff. TOMI- 
AIY¢= Wilkins, Prolus. Archit. L.72 AlIA= AN Chandler, Boeckh. L. 75 TOALAOM Chandler. 
TOAALM the other edd. On the text of lines 70-76 cf. also p. 310, below. L. 79 TONB Wilkins, 
Kirchhoff. TOOEOTO Chandler. L. 83 TOI at the end, Wilkins, Boeckh, Kirchhoff. L.92 EAEL 
Wilkins, Boeckh. L. 93 LIO all. AASMENA all. L. 97 ATOMAT Wilkins, APYOMO Boeckh. 

Col. II. L. 11 PLATO all. L. 41 the numeral | in the margin is omitted by Boeckh and New- 
ton. Wilkins and Kirchhoff give here III. See above on col. I, 1.42. L. 44 HETEPON Wilkins, 
Kirchhoff. L. 53 TEM in both places, Chandler, Boeckh. L. 58 =1|A2ZENEPA Chandler, Wilkins, 
Kirchhoff. L. 60 APAOISK Miiller. MATIOTPES earlier edd. except Newton. L. 64 Newton gives 


284 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the numeral | in the margin. L. 69 STONKAITON Chandler, Wilkins, Boeckh. KATATON sug- 
gested by Miiller. Ll. 73-83. A fragment containing portions of these lines is now lost. They are 
given in full by the earlier editors except Newton. L. 86 II in the margin, Wilkins, Kirchhoff. 


III. Fragment of white marble, 0.18 m. high, 0.18 m. wide, 0.05 m. thick. Broken 
except at the left edge. The broken rear surface fits that of No. VII; cf. above, p. 281. 
Letters 0.007 to 0.009 m. high. Not stoichedon. Found in excavations on the Acropolis 
in 1836 (Ross) and apparently re-discovered between the Erechtheum and the Parthenon 
in 1838 (Pittakis). During the interval the remains of letters in three lines at the begin- 
ning had disappeared. In the National Museum, Athens. 

Ross, Kunstblatt, 1840, p. 71. Pittakis, Ed. ’Apx., 215, 2200. Rangabé, Ant. hellén., 
86. Stephani, Annali, 1848, p. 286. I.G., I, 3226; P, 372. Choisy, Etudes, p. 93. J.—M., 
App. Ep., 22b. Roberts-Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, Il, 1176. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 
1906, pl. I (new readings). Dinsmoor, C. 

Ross (I. c.) evidently saw more than is now preserved. The first six lines of the in- 
scription are repeated below from his copy. Line 4 corresponds to line 1 on the stone as 
shown in Pirate XLVII. 


A 
PPOST 
EOESTAL 
EYAEEN 
AINAPIOM 
AXAMA 


Facsimile, Phare XLVII. 


Variant Readings. L. 1 omitted by Rangabé, Stephani. dy[upara] "Ed. ’Apx., 215, \IEL ’Ed. 
’Apx., 2205. L. 3 [dp jaxpual Ed. ’Apx., 215. AAXAMAI Rangabé. \AXAMAII. - I= ’E@. *Apx., 2205. 
L. 4 PANI Ross. L. 7 AIO \Il Stephani. AlO’ Washburn. L.8:III Ross. :III|A2 "Ed. ’Apx., 2205. 
L. 13 AA Ross. 


IV. Fragment of white marble, 0.355 m. high, 0.185 m. wide, 0.136 m. thick. Right 
edge preserved. Other edges and back broken off. At the bottom it fits Va. Letters 
0.007 to 0.01 m. high. Not stovchedon. Place of finding unknown. Bought by the Archaeo- 
logical Society. Now in the National Museum. 

Koumanoudes, ’E¢. ’Apx., 1889, p. 55, no. 3. I.G., I, Suppl. 322 (p. 152); I?, 372. J.—M., 
App. Ep., 22a. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new readings). Dinsmoor, D. 

Facsimile, Pharm XLVII. 


Variant Readings. L.14<ATA Washburn. L.21 \EK Washburn. L. 24 \&LIO Koumanoudes, 
Kirchhoff. L. 25 1702 Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 285 


V. Fragment of white marble, 0.282 m. high, 0.23 m. wide, 0.139 m. thick, inscribed 
on both faces. One edge, bottom, and back preserved. Bottom rough. In the National 
Museum. 

I.G., 1°, 372 (face A; face B omitted). Dinsmoor, F. 

Face A. Letters 0.008 m. high, as in Nos. II, III, IV. Not stoichedon. The inscription 
ends 0.25 m. from the bottom of the stone. 

Facsimile, Pharr XLVII. 


VI. Fragment of white marble, 0.05 m. high, 0.097 m. wide, 0.04 m. thick. Broken 
all around, and at the back. In the National Museum. 

I.G., I, 414; I?, 967. Cf. Dinsmoor, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, p. 245. 

Facsimile, Pharr XLVII. 


286 THE ERECHTHEUM 


II, Heapine 


"El muordrae 76 ved 76 éu rode év hor 76 dpxatov &yadpa, Bpoovri- 
dles Keduoreds, Xaprddes “Aypvdebev, Ard(v) des Keduoreds, apxeréxroly 
Pi]Noxdés ’"Axapveds, ypaupareds "Eréapxos Kvéabevaceis, 
Talbe avéypadoapr Epya 76 ved hos KatéXaGov ExovTa Kata TO oae- 

5 diolua 76 deuo ho ’Emcvyéves eirev, éxoepyacueva kal heuiepya, émi Aro- 
k]Aéos dpxovTos, Kexporidos mputavevoces mpores, ert Tés Bodés 


hjé. Nuxopaves Mapaborios rpéros éypaymarevoer. 


Iie Coley 


T6 ved Ta6€ KareAaGouev heuiepya: 
éml Tét yoviat Tet Tpds TO Kexporio- 
10 tAiWOo0s aBéTOs MEKOS TETPA- 
Ill zoéas, rAaTos dizodas, tayxos 
TptheuTrodios. 
hacxadtalay pexos TeTpATOda, 
| adaros Tpiroda, taxos TpLdv 
15 hewrodiov. 
ETLKpaviTloas MéeKos TETPATO- 
[ das, wAaros Tpirodas, TaxOS 
Tpov heurrosdiov. 
yovratay wexos herraroéa, 
20 [I] mAaros rerparoda, Taxos 
Tpiov hewzodiov. 
yoyyuAos Nidos &beros, avTipo- 
[I] pos rats émuxpavitiow, weKos 
dexatros, higoos rpidv 
25 heyrrodtov. 
avTLMOpo Tots émtaTUALOLS 
Il peéxos terpazode, tA[aros ev- 
TETANAOTO. 
KuoKpavov &berov [émi 76 
30. | péromov 76 éoo pex[os rplror, 
TAartos TpLdv heurrod|iov, raxos 
Tpiov hewrodiov. 
emotive, abera pléxos éxr]6- 
[ oda, tXaros dvoty r[odoty 


35 Kal Tadaorés, taxos [dizoda. 


The commissioners of the temple on the Acropolis in which is the ancient 
image — Brysonides of Kephisia, Chariades of Agryle, Diondes of Kephisia, 
architect Philokles of Acharnai, secretary Etearchos of Kydathenaion — recorded 
as follows the state of the work on the temple, in obedience to the decree of 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


II, Heapina 


287 


the people proposed by Epigenes, according as they found it complete or incomplete, 


in the archonship of Diokles, while Kekropis held the first prytany, in the session 


of the Council in which Nikophanes of Marathon was the first to serve as secretary. 


The following parts of the temple we found unfinished: 


II, col. 1 


At the corner towards the Cecropium: 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


Four wall-blocks not placed, 
four feet long, two feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
One maschaliara, 
four feet long, three feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
Five blocks of the wall-capital 
four feet long, three feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
One angle block, 
seven feet long, four feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
One moulded block not placed, 
ranging with the wall-capital, 
ten feet long, 
one foot and a half high. 
Two (moulded blocks) ranging with the epistyle, 
four feet long, 
one foot and a quarter wide. 
One capital not placed, 
for the metopon in the interior, 
[three feet long], one foot and a half wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
Five epistyle blocks not placed, 
eight feet long, two feet and a quarter wide, 
two feet thick. 


288 THE ERECHTHEUM 


émioridua avo ovra [ee 
érepyaoacbat meKos OKTOTO- 
Il] 8a, wAdros dvoty rodoty Kal Ta- 
NacTés, TAXOS Simoda. 
40 76 6 NoLTs Epyo harartTos 
éy Kikdor &pxer ho ’EXevowvakos 
I1| Bos rpos héu ra Fda, Kal érébe 
éml rév émtoTaroy TOUTOV. 
T6v Kovoy TOV eml TO TOLXO 
45 76 pos T6 Ilavdpoceio, 
III] Ketmévov Kuovoy 
ay) > lal ed A 9 
aTpeTa €K TO EVTOS aveE- 
pio €kaoTO TG Ktovos TplLa 
Li 
hewuTrodca. 
50 émutTvALo OKTOTOOOS 
éml 76 TOLXO TO TpOs VOTO 
i b] Aa 4 ya 
KULATLOV és TO Ego bE 
erlevat. 
oa 3 r A 
TOOE AKATAXTETTA KAL 
55 apaBdora: 
TOV TOLXOV TOV TPOS VOTO 
aVE“LO AKATAXOETTOV 
wey TO €V TEL TPOTTATEL 
an A na id 
Tét Tpos TOL Kexporriot. 
60 Tos OplocTatras aKkaTa- 
xo€oTos €x TO Exaober ey KikA[or 
aA TOV €v TE TPOTTA- 
a \ an Ul 
gel Tet Tpos TOL Kexporriou 
TAS OTEépas aTaoas 
65 a&ppaBdoros Ta &vobev- 
Tos Klovas apaBddros hamavras 
wey TOV él TG TOLXO: TeV KpETriOa ey 
U r ra i 
KUKAot haracay axataxoeorov. 
TO TOLXO TO EVTOS AKaTAaXGETTA 
70 T6 (yo)vyido Abo Terparrodias PIII. 
T6 & T6t Ipooromailor 
Tetpatodlas All. 
TES TApAacTaoos 


TeTpaTrodLas | |. 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


70 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


Three epistyle blocks in position, 
eight feet long, two feet and a quarter wide, 
two feet thick, lacked the dressing 
of their top surface. 

All the rest of the work round about begins 
with the Eleusinian stone against which the 
figures (are to be fastened), and three blocks of it 


have been placed under the present commissioners. 


Of the columns on the wall 
towards the Pandroseum, 
of four columns in position, 
one foot and a half 
of the anthemion of each column 
were uncut on the inner face. 

One epistyle block, eight feet long, 
on the south wall, 
needed to have the cymatium 
on its inner face added. 

The following parts were unsmoothed 
and unchannelled: 

The south wall 
unsmoothed, 
except in the Porch 
adjoining the Cecropium. 

The orthostates unsmoothed 
on the exterior round about, 
except in the Porch 
adjoining the Cecropium. 

The upper parts of all the bases 
unchannelled. 

The columns all unchannelled, 


. except those on the wall. 


All the substructure round about unsmoothed. 
On the wall within there were unsmoothed 
eight tetrapodies of moulded stone. 
On that in the Prostomiaion 
twelve tetrapodies. 
On the Parastas 
[seven ?] tetrapodies. 


289 


290 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


"5 76 mpos TO ayaA[ularos 
Tetpatrooias : |. 
éy Tél TpoTTaGEL TEL POS 
76 bupomaros 
rou. Bouov 76 O[vlexd 
80 aderov. 
Tés ETropodias opEKioKos 
kal hiwavras abéros. 
éml re. mpooracer Te Tpds TS[L 
Kexporriou édet 
85 TOs AlOos Tos Gpodtaios TOs 
éml TOY KopoV éTEpyaca- 
Ill cae &vobe pwexos TpLdv 
Kal déka Toddv, TAATOs TlElyTE 
Tooov. 
90 Tas KaAXas Tas él TOls éTL- 
aTvAlols éexoepyacacbar 
eu. 
[A]i@wva ravrerds exoepylalouelva 
ha xapat. 
95 twAWOo TeTPATOSES MEKOS, 
TAATOS OiTodEs, TAXOS 
Al rpiév hewrodiov, dprOyuols. 
pacxadtala, weKos TeTPA- 
| wos, wAaTOS Tpimos, TAaXOS 


100 Tpov heutrodiov. 


—-—--—-—- ]a eX 
—~ — — Jare dapibylos 
heuiepy|a xapat: 

mAt|vOou éxtkpavir|des 

5 pelos Terpamodels, tAATOS 
Tplimodes, raxos [prov 
hewrodioly]: ulvas &rperou 
modes :II1 da[rpayddo. 
herépas ao[tpayddo rér- 


10 Tapes TOde[s GTmETOL Kal 


75 


80 


85 


90 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


On that towards the image 
[six ?] tetrapodies. 
In the Porch 
before the Doorway 
the altar of the Thyechoiis 
not placed. 

The rafters and cross-pieces 
of the roof not placed. 


On the Porch adjoining the Cecropium 


the upper surfaces 
of three of the ceiling blocks 
over the maidens, 
thirteen feet long, 
five feet wide, 
needed to be dressed. 
The rosettes 
on the epistyle 
needed to be carved. 


Blocks of stone completely worked, 
on the ground: 


95 


100 


Blocks of stone partially worked, on the ground: 


10 


Wall-blocks four feet long, 
two feet wide, one foot and a half thick, 
eleven in number. 
One maschaliaca 
four feet long, three feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 


Ill 


She number. 


Blocks of the wall-capital, 
four feet long, 
three feet wide, 
one foot and a half thick; 
of one four feet 
of the astragalus were uncut; 
of another four feet and a half 


291 


292 THE ERECHTHEUM 


hewrrdd.ov. 


émuxplavitdes 


II, col. 1 


tovrov hexaaro ovK éxoepya- 
atau ho happds ho hérepos ovde 
10 hot drvcbev happot. 
pexos héxrodes, 1[A]a7os di70- 
All des, maxos rodvatot: 
tovrov hexdoro ov|k] éxoépya- 
atat ho happos ho hérepos ovde 
15 hot dmiabev happot. 
rerpamooes Mé|Klos, TAGTOS Oim0- 
Tr des, waxos modtatou: 
rovtov hexaaro ovx éxoépya- 
arat ho happos ho hérepos ov6é 
20 hot driabev happoi. 
TEVTETOS MeKOS, TAGTOS OLTOSs, 
| maxos Todtatos: 


rovto apyos ho happos ho here 


pos Kai hou dmiabev happot. 

25 yeltoa MeéeKos TeTpATOOA, TAGTOS 
Tpiroba, TAXOS TeVTETANQGTA, 

Pil Aetla] éxremoueuéva advev Kara- 
TOMES. 
CT hérepow péyebos 70 abrov: 

30 Kupatto Kal dotpayado hexatépo 
ATMETOL Ear TEéTTApPES TOOES 
hexaoro. 

Il herépou 
aTpMETOL Egay TO KYMaTlo TéTTApES 
35 TOES, TO 6€ AOTPAYANO OKTO TOdES. 
| herépo 
TO KupaTtio Tpia hewrodia dryer, 
aoTpayano TETTApES TOOES. 


| hérepov 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 293 


of the astragalus were uncut. 
Blocks of the wall-capital 


LieC one tt 


Of each of these 
one of the end joints and the rear joints 
are not finished. 
Twelve blocks six feet long, 
two feet wide, one foot thick; 
of each of these 
one of the end joints and the rear joints 
are not finished. 
Five blocks four feet long, 
two feet wide, one foot thick; 
of each of these 
one of the end joints and the rear joints 
are not finished. 
One block five feet long, 
two feet wide, one foot thick; 
of this one of the end joints 
and the rear joints are unworked. 
Seven cornice blocks 
four feet long, three feet wide, 
one foot and a quarter thick, 
blocked out smooth, but not carved. 
Of five others of the same dimensions 
four feet of the astragalus 
and cymatium of each 
were uncut. 
Of two others 
four feet of the cymatium, 
eight feet of the astragalus were uncut. 
Of another 
one foot and a half of the cymatium, 
four feet of the astragalus were uncut. 
Of another 


294 


40 


45 


50 Ill 


60 


70 


rl 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


Tew pev delay Epyaciay Epyaoro, 
76 O€ KUMATLo apyol 1ddes Ecay hexs 
Kal hewirddvov, aotrpayado apyol 

f b la 
modes OKTO. 
herépo 
ca 1 BI t > ha 
KupaTtio éxs modes apyol, 
aoTpayado OKTO 71dd€Es. 
hérepov 

, an , 3 if 

hewiepyov rés Neias épyacias. 
TOV ATO TES TTOAS MEKOS TETPATO- 
da, tAATOsS TpiTo0ba, TAXOS TEVTE- 
TadaoTa, eta éxrreTTOLEMEva 


aQvev KATATOLMES. 


yoviata éml Tév TpdcTacW TEV 
apos héo, weéxos héxrode, tharos 
rerapTo heuirodio, raxos 
TEVTETANATTA’ 

rovrov 76 herépo he deta pev épya- 
cia éxoepyaoro, TO b€ KUMaTLOV 
apyov hddov kat ho acrpay[aldos: 
76 6& herépo apyo(l) Kumatlio T]pés 
modes Kal heutrod.ov, 76 b€ doTpa- 
yaro apyol modes 1évTE. 

éml Tov TOLxoY TOY Tpos T6 ILavdpoce(io) 
mexos herra roddv kal hewrodio, 
TAATOS TpLGV TOdGY Kal heurodio, 
hepiepyov rés Nelas épyactas: 
bexos héxrodov, wAaTos TpLoy 
mwodov Kal maXdaoTes, TAXOS TEVTE- 
mwadacTov érl Tov TotxXoV TOV Tpds 
76 Iavépoceio: 

TOUTO doTpayado ATMETOL TOdES 
TEVTE. 

aiertator T6v ATO Tes OTOGS MéKo|s 
herramodes, tAATOS TpLdv Todd|y 
kal heuwrodio, taxos Todtaton, 
hodrou heuiepyor. 

herépo meéxos revtérode, 1[AATOs 


Tpiov moder Kal hewirodilo, axos 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


70 


75 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


the smooth part was finished, 
but six feet and a half of the cymatium, 
eight feet of the astragalus 
were unworked. 
Of another 
six feet of the cymatium, 
eight feet of the astragalus were unworked. 
Another 
incompletely worked as regards the smooth part. 
Four blocks, from the stoa, 
four feet long, three feet wide, 
one foot and a quarter thick, 
blocked out smooth, but not carved. 
Two angle blocks 
to be placed upon the East Portico, 
six feet long, three feet and a half wide, 
one foot and a quarter thick; 
one of these had the smooth part worked, 
but the entire cymatium 
and astragalus were unworked; 
of the other 
three feet and a half of the cymatium, 
five feet of the astragalus were unworked. 


To be placed upon the wall towards the Pandroseum: 


one (angle) block seven feet and a half long, 
three feet and a half wide, 
incompletely worked as regards the smooth part; 
one (angle) block six feet long, 
three feet and a quarter wide, 
one foot and a quarter thick, 
to be placed upon the wall towards the Pandroseum; 
of this five feet of the astragalus 
were uncut. 
Six pediment blocks, from the stoa, 
seven feet long, 
three feet and a half wide, one foot thick; 
these incompletely worked. 
Two others five feet long, 
three feet and a half wide, one foot thick, 


296 


80 


85 


90 


95 


100 


L!] 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


rodvatot, heutep|ylor. 

Set 3 it \ ? \ 4 
veloa él Tos aleros 7[AGTOS 
aévre hewirodloy, pél[Kos TETTA- 
pov rodev Kal heyuro[dio, ra xos 
modtata: rev delay éplyaciay 
EKTTETTOLEMEVOV * 

hérepov hepiepyov rés 

Aelas épyacias. 

Oipar NiBuvat pméxos OKTO TOOGY 

A a 4 e 
Kal madagrTeés, TAGTOS. TEVTE 
hepurrosdiov’ 

r \ \ A bd t 
TovTov Ta pev AAG EXoETETOL- 
eTo, és Ta Svya dé ede TOs ALHos 
TOs péeAavas evOevar. 
os Tér humepOipou Tét Tpds ~o 
heplepyov. 
rou Bouse [ré]e 7G Ovexs AiOor Tev- 
TeXeuxo|l] wéxos TeTPATOdES 
hidaos [S]voty rodoty kat radaorels, 
TAXOS TOOLAtOL. 
héreplols tpimos [ué]xos hlidoos 
dvoty] rodo[ty kal radacrés 

ld a 
[raxos modtatos.| 


VI 


— — — —| ov éni rdarel 


lov 


IV anp Va 


€TUKpaviTis MeKos Te|TPATOS, 
mraTos Svoty rodotly Kat hew- 
modlo, maxos TpLsv] hewzodtov. 
yeloa érl Tos alet|és tAGTOS 
mévre heutrodioly, wexos Ter- 
Tapov ody Kal] hewzodio, 


4 tal 
TaXOS TodLatla. 


80 


85 


90 


95 


100 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 297 


incompletely worked. 
Blocks of the raking cornice, 
two feet and a half wide, 
four feet and a half long, 
one foot thick; 
one block had the smooth part worked; 
another incompletely worked 
as regards the smooth part. 
Four stone doors, 
eight feet and a quarter long, 
two feet and a half wide; 
these were complete in other respects, 
but the black stones needed to be set 
in their cross-pieces. 
One console for a lintel at the east end 
incompletely worked. 
Blocks of Pentelic marble 
for the altar of the Thyechoiis; 
three blocks four feet long, 
two feet and a quarter high, one foot thick; 
another block three feet long, 
two feet and a quarter high, 
one foot thick. 


IV anp Va 


One block of the wall-capital 
four feet long, two feet and a half wide, 
one foot and a half thick. 
Blocks of the raking cornice 
two feet and a half wide, 
four feet and a half long, 
one foot thick. 


298 THE ERECHTHEUM 


10 dvTluopos Tlots émuaTvAtors 
[1] péxos rerplazmos, rAaros 
Simos, Taxols TevTeTANAOTOS. 
—------ Jou wreptovtes 
—----- Klara Tovxov. 
15 pexos Oxt|om7o6es. 
[1] hérepos pléxos rerpamos. 
[1] abercatos(?) kal péxos kal mXa7Oos 
reTpatol|s KapmvAos. 
[1] — -— — — ]ueékos xal rdaros héxzos. 
20 — — — — Jou péxos TerpaTodes. 
[1] hérepos uléxos tpizos. 
[1] -— — -— — pélkos wevrézos. 
[l]}] ----- Ja péxos revrémos. 
’"EXevowrakols AiBos wexos OxTOTOS, 
a5 [I] ddros dilros, raxos TpirddacTo(s). 
[il] ’EXevorvcaxd [uléexos héxzroéde, 


mAaTlos Tpimode. 


COMMENTARY 


The heading of this inscription contains important evidence in regard to the date of the 
Erechtheum and the purpose for which it was built. The fact that there was a special de- 
cree of the people ordering the commissioners to prepare a detailed report on the state of 
the building as they found it at the beginning of the year 409/8 B.c., and that this report 
was recorded on a stele, points clearly to a resumption of building operations after a con- 
siderable interruption. No definite information exists as to the length of the period of in- 
activity, nor as to the date when the temple was begun.! Even more important is the 
designation of the Erechtheum in line 1 as 6 veds 6 éu Ildder & hoe 76 Gpxatov &yadua.2 This 
statue was evidently the sacred xoanon of Athena Polias. In the opinion of most scholars 
it stood (or was to stand) in the East Cella, a theory which is supported by a passage in the 
account of 409/8 B.c. (XI, col. 1, ll. 42-46 and the commentary, p. 364). The phrase év 
hé. 7d apxatov ayadua suggests that the image was actually in place in the unfinished temple, 
though it is also possible to understand it in a proleptic sense.? The former interpretation, 

1 On this date, see Ch. V, pp. 452 ff. 

This phrase has been restored in an inscription found in 1921, J.G., I?, 88, 1. 20. Cf. Sitzb. Berl. Akad., 1922, 


pp. 187-192; Pogorelski, A.J.A., XX VII, 1923, pp. 314 ff.; Dinsmoor, ibid., pp. 318 ff. But a new examination of 
the stone by B. H. Hill has shown that the restoration is impossible; see Ch. V, p. 454, note 1. 


§ Cf. II, col. 1, 1. 41: ho ’EXevowiaxds Mos rpds hdr ra fda. The reliefs (¢ga) were not executed till the following 
year. Cf. below, p. 413. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 299 


10 One block ranging with the epistyle 
four feet long, two feet wide, 
one foot and a quarter thick. 
—----- left over 
—------ along the wall. 
15 Blocks eight feet long. 
Another (?) four feet long. 
One tympanum block (?) with broken outline, 
length and width four feet. 
One block, length and width six feet. 
20 Blocks four feet long. 
Another (?) three feet long. 
Another (?) five feet long. 
—------ five feet long. 
One block of Eleusinian stone eight feet long, 
25 two feet wide, three-quarters of a foot thick. 
Two blocks of Eleusinian stone six feet long, 
three feet wide. 


however, is the more natural, and it is borne out by the passage just referred to — ypade? 
Kadvppata ypadoarte Allll éri rév dpodév, emi Tas ceridas Tas brép TO ayaduaros. For it is 
improbable that the position of these ceiling-coffers (xaAtjuuara) would be thus described 
unless the image were actually below them. These two passages taken together are strong 
arguments in favor of the theory that the image had always stood in this position, and was 
left as far as possible undisturbed while the temple was being built. 

The émicrara mentioned in the heading are the commissioners appointed to have charge 
of the operations during the year 409/8 B.c., not a board appointed simply to draw up the 
report. This may be inferred from the fact that they had already begun their activities 
by setting in place three blocks of the frieze before making the report (col. 1, 1. 42). The 
custom of entrusting public works at Athens to such boards appointed annually is attested, 
for the Periclean age at least, by a number of inscriptions. The boards varied in size ac- 
cording to the magnitude of the undertaking. Probably six commissioners, with a secretary, 
had charge of the work on the Parthenon (J.G., I, 304; I’, 348), though the number of 
names to be restored is uncertain. Five érucrara supervised the building of the Propylaea 
(I.G., I, 314, 315; I’, 363, 366). Three men, with whom Kallikrates was associated as 
architect, were appointed to draw up the plans for the construction of the temple of 
Athena Nike (J. G., I’, 24, 1. 16), and presumably a similar board was entrusted with the 


1 For a fuller discussion of this question, see Ch. V, pp. 456 ff. 


300 THE ERECHTHEUM 


execution of the project. The present inscription shows that the work on the Erechtheum 
in 409/8 B.c. was under the direction of three commissioners, with whom were associated 
an architect and a secretary. That such émordra were chosen annually is shown by the 
inscriptions relating to the building of the Propylaea, which contain different sets of names 
for the years 437 /6 and 4234/3 B.c. The superintending architect was also elected annually 
(see below). How long the custom of creating special commissions for the direction of 
important public works continued is not known. At the end of the fourth century oi 
mwrnral kal 6 éml TH Suoxnoe: are found fulfilling the functions of the émuorara.’ 

Line 1. Bpoowllé]es. Kirchhoff suggested that Opacvuédes was the correct form. Heer- 
mance proposed Bpvoovides comparing I.G., II, 1446 *Avridudros Bpvowvidov Opracros. 

Line 2. Xapiddes ’Aypudeev. Xapiddes Xaplov “Aypudebev was Hellenotamias in 408/7 (J.G., 
I, 140, 1. 25; I’, 255, |. 328). 

Auovies Keduorets. The emendation is due to Kirchhoff. 

"A pxuréxrov Pudroxnrés ’Axapvebs. A different architect, ’Apxtdoxos ’AypuAébev, is mentioned 
in the account of the next year, 408/7 B.c.2 Fabricius and Michaelis, who assigned this 
account to the year 409/8 B.c., made Philokles the head architect and Archilochos a sub- 
ordinate.2 But now that the account is known to belong to the following year it is plain 
that Archilochos was the successor of Philokles in the same office. Neither was the designer 
of the building, but merely the superintending architect. On the salary — a drachma a 
day, — and on the status of the architect in general, see Richardson in The Argive Heraeum, 
vol. I, pp. 219 ff. 

Line 7. Kara 76 doédicpa 76 Séuo ho ’Emvyéves cirev. A fragment of this decree is perhaps 
preserved in inscription I. 

The remainder of the slab, beginning with line 8, contains the report, or inventory, 
arranged in two parallel columns, the letters being slightly smaller than those of the head- 
ing. Numerals are placed in the margin to the left of each column. 

The report falls into two main parts: (A) a description of the state of the building itself 
at the time of the resumption of work, noting the height which the walls had reached all 
around, and stating what final details, such as the fluting of columns, the carving of mould- 
ings, the smoothing of wall surfaces, remained to be done. This part takes up lines 8-92 
of column 1, and is introduced by the heading 7é ved rade xareddGouery heuiepya. (B) An 
inventory of the blocks on the site, arranged in three series: (1) those which were fully 
worked and ready to be hoisted into place, — Néwa ravredds éLepyacuéva ha xapat (II, 
col. 1, ll. 93-100; continued after a break on III, 1.2). (2) Those on which some work re- 


1 In the inscription relating to the repairs of the walls of Athens in 306 B.c., I.G., II, 167; II’, 463. Cf. Fricken- 
haus, Athens Mauern im IV Jahrhundert, pp. 37 ff., and on the whole subject of érorarat, Fabricius, De architectura 
graeca, pp. 17 ff. 

2 4 the heading, XV, |. 3, and twice with the statement of his salary for a prytany, XIII, col. 1, 1. 56; XVII, 
col, 11, 1. 9. 


* Fabricius, De architectura graeca, p. 18, note 3; Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, p. 356. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 301 


mained to be done, — heuiepya xauai (III, ll. 3 ff.; continued after a break on Li veole rn: 
ll. 8-99). (3) Blocks which were still in the rough, as they had come from the quarries (the 
heading in the part missing between II, col. 11, and IV, continued on IV and Va to the end). 

The first part (A) may be subdivided as follows: 

(1) State of the building at the southwest corner, col. 1, ll. 9-43. This section has a 
special heading: émi ré& yoviau r& mpds 76 Kexporio (1. 9). 

(2) Ornamental details not finished, Il. 44-53. 

(3) List of walls that are unsmoothed and of columns and bases that have not been 
fluted, ll. 54—76. 

(4) State of the North Portico, ll. 77-82. 

(5) State of the Porch of the Maidens, Il. 83-92. 


(1) State or THE BuriLpInG aT THE SouTHweEst Corner. Lines 9-43 


The corner of the temple described as ‘‘ towards the Cecropium” is clearly the southwest 
corner, since the Porch of the Maidens, which is built against the west end of the south wall, 
is called é rpdcraots € rpds 761 Kexporior (col. 1, ll. 58, 63, 83). Here the walls had not reached 
the same height as in the rest of the building. What this general level was is explained in 
the last four lines of the passage: ‘‘ All the rest of the work round about begins with the 
Eleusinian stone against which the figures (are to be fastened), and three blocks of it have 
been set in place under the present commissioners.’’ That is, at the time of the report, the 
walls were complete up to and including the epistyle, except for a number of blocks, chiefly 
in the vicinity of the southwest corner; and the commissioners had already begun their 
activities by setting in place three blocks of the frieze. 

The particular blocks noted as missing at the southwest corner can be identified with 
certainty. The first attempts were made by Wilkins and by Boeckh, who was followed by 
Newton.” The former failed because he misinterpreted the terms tXivOos, pacxadtaia, 
émuxpavitis, Supposing them to designate roof-tiles of various shapes. Boeckh was more 
nearly successful, but was unable to give a convincing explanation of the obscure terms 
pacxandtaia and pérwrov. The solution of the problem here presented is due to B. H. Hill.’ 

The blocks mentioned fall into three groups — mrdAiv6o, émixpavitides, érvoTvALa— Cor- 


1 Most of the earlier commentators, misled by the form of the verb éré@e, made the numeral III refer to ¢d:a. 
Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1898, p. 357, and Frickenhaus, A.J.A., X, 1906, p. 14, understood the sentence correctly. 
The form éré#e was evidently written instead of éréMecav because 6 ’EXevow axds Aidos, used in a collective sense im- 
mediately above, had more effect upon the verb than the numeral ||| in the margin, which was really its subject. 

2 Wilkins, Atheniensia, p. 202; also in Walpole, Memoirs, p. 591; and in Prolus. Archit., p. 20. Boeckh, C.I/.G., I, 
pp. 273 ff., and figs. V, VI, p. 267. Newton, Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., I, pp. 89 ff., and figs. V, VI. 

3 Cf. Caskey and Hill, A.J.A., XII, 1908, pp. 184 ff., from which the discussion of this passage in the inscription 
is in great part repeated. The investigation of this problem, as well as of many others raised by these inscriptions, was 
put on a new basis by Dérpfeld’s determination of the length of the Attic foot. Comparing the recorded dimensions 
with the remains of the Erechtheum, he found that the foot was between 0.326 m. and 0.328 m. in length, and that 
this result was confirmed by numerous measurements on Periclean and later buildings. See Ath. Mitt., XV, 1890, pp. 
167 ff., and above, Ch. II, p. 222. 


302 THE ERECHTHEUM 


responding to three courses of the wall. TWhiv6os (or mrwvis) is the term regularly used in 
building inscriptions to denote the ordinary blocks of a wall. “Emcxpavirides, with which 
the noun zAivbor must be supplied,! are the blocks of the crowning course of the wall, the 
‘‘wall-capital,” upon which the epistyle (ériort\va) rested. 

The first group comprises four ordinary wall-blocks (1. 10) and a pacxadvaia (sc. rAivOos) 
of equal length and height, but of different width (1. 13).? Its position in the list suggests 
that it belonged in the same course with the 7AivOo. In the émxpaviris course are noted 
first five blocks of the normal length, 4 ft., then a corner block 7 ft. long, and then a yoyyi- 
Nos AiBos dvripopos Tats émixpaviriow, Which may be translated ‘‘profiled stone ranging with 
the epicranitis blocks.” The mouldings which adorned this course were identical in profile 
on both faces of the wall, but differed in the character of their decoration. On the outer 
face this decoration (egg-and-dart, honeysuckle, etc.) was carved in relief; on the inner 
face the mouldings were left smooth, the designs being painted on them.* The block con- 
taining these smooth, ‘‘rounded’”’ mouldings was called yoyytAos \idos. The word dvripopos, 
which occurs only in this inscription as an architectural term, must mean ‘“‘ranging with,”’ 
‘“‘corresponding to,’’ ‘‘on a level with.’”” Somewhere on the south wall (or possibly on an- 
other wall in the vicinity) for a distance of ten feet, the epicranitis was composed of two 
rows of blocks set back to back. In the same way the epistyle was composed of two rows 
of blocks for a space of eight feet — dvriuopo tots éruorvAlous (1. 26).4 These avrivopa of the 
epistyle are mentioned with the dvtiuopo. of the epicranitis, although logically they should 
have been put at the end of the list. Finally there is noted as missing one capital, xoxpavov 
(1. 29), which is in some way to be brought into connection with a ‘‘metopon in the interior.” 
In the epistyle course five blocks are mentioned as missing (1. 33), and three others already 
in position lacked the final smoothing of their top surface. 

The list is here repeated in tabular form (p. 303), the dvtiuopo of the epistyle being 
transferred to the third group where they rightly belong. 

In the attempt to identify these missing blocks it will be well to begin with the epistyle 
as presenting the fewest difficulties. Boeckh assigned the five missing epistyle blocks to 
the western part of the south wall. The three blocks described as d&vo dvra he places next 
to them to the East, reaching to the block still in situ over the southeast anta and column. 
The actual distance, however, from this block to the end of the wall is fifty-seven Attic 

1 Cf. rdivOou érxpavirides, III, 1. 4. 

® In the inscriptions four terms are used to designate the three dimensions of the blocks, — ékos, tAdros, raxos, 
ios. The first two, translated by the words “length,” “width,” generally refer to horizontal dimensions, the remain- 
ing two, “thickness,” “height,” to the vertical dimension. Méxos (length) is usually the horizontal dimension of a 
block visible after it has been set up. The width (+\dzos) is usually that horizontal dimension which is not visible after 
the block has been placed. But in the lists of frieze blocks, which were thin slabs set on end, the height is called mAdros. 

* The mouldings on the inner face are preserved only on one block, the capital of the anta at the south end of 
the west wall. This has its mouldings sculptured on the west and north faces, smooth on the east face (p. 175; Fig. 
109). The epistyle similarly had its crowning member carved where it was exposed to the weather, while in the in- 


terior of the building it was left smooth and painted. Cf. XIII, col. m, lL. 12, and Commentary, p. 410. 
* In the Roman repairs évziyopo. were employed behind both epicranitis and epistyle; see Ch. I, pp. 52, 53. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 303 


feet, which gives room for only seven of the eight blocks placed here by Boeckh. The 
eighth cannot be the block in situ at the east end, since that is eleven feet long instead of 
eight feet. It must have been the southernmost epistyle block of the west wall, which 


; Numb ehh te A ‘ oes: ee 
Line pe iiées Designation Length Width Height 
10 4 twrWOor aOeTOL 4 2 13 
13 1 pacxadtaia (rdivOos ) 4 3 13 
16 5 ELK PAVLTLOES 4 3 13 
19 1 yovraia (érKkpavitis ) fi 4 13 
22 il yoyyvXos Nibos avTiwopos Tats éruKpavitiow 10 — 13 
29 1 KLoKpavov afeTov — — peéToTOV TO éoo — 13 13 
33 5 érioTina aber a 8 rt 2 
36 3 érioTbAva avo OvTa 8 2% 2 
26 2 (yoyyido Alfo) avtimdpo Tots EmtaruAtots + i — 


was of the length required and could not have been in position at the time, since the angle 
block of the epicranitis, upon which its south end rested, was still missing (1. 19). The eight 
epistyle blocks of the inscription were then as indicated in Figure 180.1 


(wo a 

PORCH OF THE MAIDENS cre Ce eee Pe es ES 
° 5 10 
eee te eed 


Figure 180. SOUTH WALL, SHOWING POSITION OF BLOCKS MISSING IN 409 B.C. 


The missing stones of the course below are, as Boeckh saw, the corner block, yorrata 
émtxpaviris AivOos (marked F in Figure 180) and the five blocks next to the corner.’ 

Leaving out for the present the xdxpavoy of line 29 and the two less important items 
regarding backing stones, we have left four ordinary wall-blocks and one pacxadvaia whivOos 


1 As finally set up, block 2, on the indication of a dowel hole in the top of the course below (p. 175; Fig. 110), 
was only seven feet long. The discrepancy is to be explained by a change in plan, due to the peculiar features of this 
angle of the building. See below, p. 307. 

2 The regular epicranitides, of which many are preserved, are four feet long and one foot and a half high, as 
specified in the inventory; their width, — none has its inner face preserved, — appears to have been slightly more 
than two feet and three-quarters, that is, the thickness of the wall, two feet, increased by the projection of the crowning 
moulding, three-eighths of a foot on each side; this projection was reckoned at half a foot, making the total width three 
feet, as stated in the inscription. 

The western portion of the corner block has remained in situ; and the rest of it has been identified in several 
fragments, which were replaced in the course of the reconstruction in 1908 (Fig. 33). Its width, measured on the west 
face, approximates that given in the inscription. Its length is seven feet, measured along the face, not including the 
moulding at the west end. See also Ch. I, p. 51. 


304. THE ERECHTHEUM 


differing from the others in one of its dimensions: it is three instead of two feet wide. The 
word paoyadaia does not occur elsewhere. The etymology (from pacxahn = armpit) sug- 
gests a stone of angular shape. Boeckh therefore made it an angle block, and placed it at 
the southwest corner of the building, with the four 7Aivo next to it to the East. But the 
angle block of this course is still in situ, and has different dimensions (5 X 3, instead of 


4x3 ft.). A stone of the required dimensions and of this shape ae was in all proba- 


bility used at the beginning of the eastern cross-wall (the block marked CW in Figure 180), 
but it cannot have been the pacyadvaia of the inscription, since on this part of the wall the 
courses next above were already in position. Let us assume that the uacxadvaia was one of 
the five zXivOor next to the southwest corner as indicated in Figure 180. It is evident that 
if these five blocks were lacking, the corner epicranitis block and the five blocks next to it 
could not have been in place. And, again, if these six blocks were missing, the five epistyle 
blocks belonging above them could not have been laid. These facts help to confirm the 
proposed identification of the missing blocks in each course. 

In Figure 180 the wacyadraia (M) has been placed next to the corner block. The reason 
for this will appear upon an examination of the inner face of the wall at this point. A de- 
tailed description of the peculiar features of this corner of the building has already been 
given.! It is sufficient here to call attention again to the following points: (1) In the north 
face of the corner block of the eighth course from the top is a cutting into which a horizontal 
slab projecting from the face of the wall was fitted (PLatre XII; Fig. 48). (2) The anta 
above this slab, 1.e., in its eight upper courses, is only one foot and a quarter thick (PLATE 
XII). Similarly the south wall for a distance of five feet from the anta is only one foot 
thick (PLATE X), whereas the regular thickness of both wall and anta is two feet. (3) The 
niche thus formed was bounded at its east end by a pilaster three-quarters of a foot wide, 
as is clear from cuttings for blocks intended to project from the face of the wall (PLaTs XII; 
Figs. 109, 111). How far the pilaster projected cannot be determined from the remains. 
Fortunately the inscription here comes to our aid. 

So far in the attempt to locate the missing blocks we have neglected the item xidxpavov 
aberov [- —] wérorov 76 goo, The interpretation of the word pérorov has caused difficulty. 
Miiller’s view that it designated the west wall with the windows must be rejected now that 
it is known that this wall is a reconstruction made in Roman times, and that originally 
the intercolumniations were closed by a wooden grille.2 Boeckh, followed by Newton, 
Choisy, and Hiller (/.G., I?, 372), restored xai in the short lacuna after derov, and con- 
sidered the block to be the capital of the southernmost column on the west wall, composed 
of an Ionic capital, xdxpavor, on its outer face, and a pilaster capital, Hérorov, on its inner 
face. But xdxpavov kal wéroroy 76 évo is a clumsy designation for this composite capital; and 
the dimensions (width, 14 ft., height, 14 ft.) cannot be made to fit. 


1 Ch. I, pp. 171-178. 2 See Ch. I, pp. 64-66. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 305 


An examination of the other occurrences of the word in building inscriptions throws 
some light on the problem. The specifications for the construction of the naval arsenal at 
the Piraeus contain the following directions (I.G., II, 1054; Dittenberger, Sylloge?, 537, 
Il. 23 ff.): Kal oixodouqoe pérwrov éxarépwber év TG peratd rov Oupa@v, waTOos Sitrovy, els 5€ TO Elow 
dexamrouy, kal TepiKayWe Tov Totxov MEXpL TV TPwTwY KLdYwY Tpds bY avoiéerar ) Obpa éexatépa. The 
arrangement is shown in the accompanying plan (Fig. 181). Between the doors a MéTwrrov, 
or partition (M), two feet wide, and extending inward ten feet, is to be built. Correspond- 
ing partitions (M’, M”) are to bound the doorways on their outer sides. According to 
Fabricius’ and Dérpfeld? the word is here used nearly in its 
etymological sense. Originally it denoted the forehead, i.e., 
the space between the eyes (werd, 677). So here it is used of 
a pillar between two openings. But this interpretation does 
not take account of the fact that the word in this inscrip- ’ ay 
tion is apparently applied to the two lateral partitions (M’, Figure 181. METOPON IN 
M”) as well as to the central one. In line 59 we read: xal = Neath fe brace ea 


enlOnoe vTép Tav Oupay él Ta péTwWTA Ex TOD évTds dpodyy ALHivny ALBov ‘Tunrriov. It may be 
argued that the vérwra are only the central partitions, of which there was one at each end 
of the arsenal. But the stone ceilings rested on the lateral partitions as well, and it is 
probable that the term is applied also to them. The occurrences in other inscriptions 
show that the term was used with a rather indefinite meaning. Originally denoting ‘“‘fore- 
head” it came to be applied to any limited flat, vertical surface. So in an inscription 
from Oropos (J.G., VII, 4255; Dittenberger, Sylloge?, 542, 1. 20) the wérwra, or visible 
surfaces of blocks of stone, are distinguished from the ébpa, or soffits, and the dpyot, or 
vertical surfaces of contact. In an inscription from the Piraeus (’E¢. ’Apx., 1900, p. 94, 
1. 46, col. 11) the faces of the steps of a staircase are called yvérwra.? 

In the inscription relating to the Piraic arsenal, as we have seen, the word designates a 
flat partition projecting into the interior from the external wall. It seems reasonable 
therefore to explain the ‘‘metopon in the interior” of the Erechtheum as a similar projec- 
tion, and to identify it with the pilaster which bounded the niche to the East. The greater 
width of the wacxadaia wdivOos can then be accounted for. The block was of the shape 
shown in Figure 182. The projection, one foot in length and three palms in width, formed 
one course of the pilaster, or metopon. East of the projection the block had the regular 
thickness of the wall, two feet; on the west it had the thickness of the south wall of the 
niche, one foot. It could appropriately be termed an ‘‘arm-pit stone.’’ The position ten- 
tatively assigned to it in Figure 180, next to the corner block of course 2, proves to be correct. 


1 Hermes, XVII, 1882, p. 573. 

2 Ath. Mitt., VIII, 1883, p. 157. 

3 Cf. also J.G., II, 167, 1. 66; B.C.H., XX, 1896, p. 324, 1.65. In J.G., I, 5, 830c (p. 197), a6 Tod onueliou apkauevov 
péxpe TOO perwrov Tay tvAr, the word may designate a pillar between two doors, but Foucart’s translation, “au front 


de la porte”’ is also possible. 


306 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The xdxpavov [émi ro] uérorov — adopting Miller’s restoration of line 29— also ceases 
to bea mystery. It was a block of the form shown in Figure 182, and was placed above the 
projecting portion of the wacxadaia. The width given in the inscription is suitable, since 
the pérorov was three-quarters of a foot wide, and with the projections of the mouldings on 
both sides (2 + 2) the block would be one foot and a half wide. The height, one foot and a 


U7 


a 


Figure 183. PLAN OF EPICRANITIS 
IN NICHE 
half, is the height of the epicranitis course. 
The length, — rpizovv, — has to be restored, 
but the letters fit the space satisfactorily, and 
a cutting in the preserved corner block of the 
epicranitis, into which the xdxpavoy fitted, 
proves that it actually had this length, if the 
pilaster projected one foot, as has been pro- 
posed. The plan of the epicranitis course is 
given in Figure 183. A section through the 
wall below (represented by hatching) shows 
that the metopon projected the same distance 
from the wall as does the anta. The appear- 
ance of the niche as a whole is suggested in 


0 2 3 4 PuatTE XV and Figure 111. 


The reason for having such a pilaster here 
is plain. It was designed to mask the transi- 
tion from the thin wall of the niche to the normal wall east of it. In the same way the marble 
slab forming a platform in front of the niche masked the transition from the normal wall 
and anta below to the thin wall and anta above. The surface of this slab was inclined 
towards the west. This can only have been for the purpose of shedding rain water, and 
shows that the slab was not simply a narrow shelf, but that it must have projected some 
distance. In the drawings (PLatr XV; Fig. 111) it has been assumed that it reached as far 
as the first column.! 

The thinning of the walls can only have been for the purpose of decreasing their weight, 
for which a good reason existed. The southwest corner of the Erechtheum had no solid 


Ficurb 182. MASCHALIAIA AND KIOKRANON 


1 For a fuller description of the remains of the niche, see Ch, I, pp. 171 ff. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 307 


foundation, but was supported by the huge block spanning the Cecropium, an earlier struc- 
ture which the architect of the new temple was not permitted to remove (pp. 127 ff.). The 
modifications did not end with the walls. There is evidence that the weight of the 
epistyle, frieze, and tympanum at this corner was also decreased, and that the plan of the 
cornice was altered correspondingly. The arrangement of the frieze, cornice, and tym- 
panum will be discussed below in the commentary on the account of 409/8 B.c. (pp. 347 ff.). 
The inscriptions yield no direct evidence in regard to the epistyle. Its arrangement, there- 
fore, may conveniently be discussed here. 

The normal plan of the epistyle at the corner is shown in Figure 184 (left), the joint be- 
tween blocks 1 and 2 being bevelled, and block 2 being of the normal length, eight feet. As 


Figure 184. PLANS OF EPISTYLE AT SOUTHWEST CORNER 


actually constructed, the south end of block 1 was of the form indicated in Figure 110, as is 
proved by two dowel holes in the upper surface of the corner block of the epicranitis 
(p. 176). The northern end of this epistyle block, we may safely assume, followed the lines 
of the capital beneath it, and had the normal width. The rest of the block was cut down to 
about one foot and a quarter. Similarly block 2 was cut down to half its width over the 
niche, and at its eastern end may have had the shape shown in Figure 184 (right); for it is 
reasonable to assume that its form followed the lines of the metopon. Otherwise the 
capital of the metopon would have appeared as an awkward and meaningless projection 
from the wall. A confirmation of the correctness of this restoration is perhaps furnished 
by the figures for the painting of the cymatium on the inner epistyle, as will be shown 
below (pp. 410 ff.). 

The dvrivopox, blocks ‘ranging with” the epicranitis and epistyle (lines 22, 26) are 
difficult to identify. It might be supposed that for some distance along the south wall 
these two courses were composed of two rows of blocks set back to back. But it is not easy 
to find a probable position for backing stones of the dimensions given anywhere on the south 
wall. A plausible alternative has been suggested by L. B. Holland in connection with his 
theory as to the arrangement of the ceiling of the east cella. He would place the avrivopa 
on the east face of the eastern cross-wall. His reconstruction is described below, p. 351, 

We should expect to find all the missing blocks, which have thus been identified, men- 


308 THE ERECHTHEUM 


tioned later in the report in the list of stones lying finished, half-worked, or unworked on the 
site. But unfortunately the inscription is here incomplete. Lines 93-100 of column I give 
a part of the list of finished blocks, including the pacxadaia (1. 98) and eleven wAivGo in- 
stead of four. Since these blocks of standard size would be ordered in bulk, it is not sur- 
prising to find that seven rAiv6o. were left over after the completion of the walls. Inscrip- 
tion III contains the continuation of column 1. Under the heading heuiepya xapuai are listed 
several unfinished blocks of the epicranitis. Probably the remaining blocks of the epicrani- 
tis and the five epistyle blocks followed on the missing part of the slab. One of the epicrani- 
tis blocks is mentioned in the list of unworked stones, IV, line 3. One of the avripopa of 
the epistyle is perhaps mentioned in IV, lines 10-12. 


(2) ORNAMENTAL DerarLs NoT FInisHED. Lines 44-53 


Lines 44-49, — The four columns referred to are those upon the west wall of the temple, 
which is regularly described as ‘‘the wall towards the Pandroseum.” ! They were already 
in place at the time (xe.uévov is of course used here as the passive of 7i@num), and the chan- 
nels had been carved (1. 67). The engaged columns now standing on the wall date from 
the time of the Roman repairs. The upper part of the original columns stood free, with 
wooden grilles between them; and the item regarding one foot and a half of anthemion on 
their necking may indicate that the inner faces were different from the outer. The length, 
one foot and a half, can easily be explained if the inner faces were pilasters a foot wide and 
projecting a quarter of a foot.? 

Lines 50-53. — The setting in of a separate block containing the crowning moulding 
of the inner face of the epistyle was an exceptional case, due probably to an injury. On the 
preserved blocks of the Erechtheum there are several places where sections of mouldings 
have been thus set in.’ 


(3) List or SURFACES THAT ARE UNSMOOTHED AND OF BASES AND 
CoLUMN SHAFTS THAT ARE UNFLUTED. Lines 54-76 


(a) The south wall unsmoothed, except in the Porch of the Maidens. 
(6) The orthostates unsmoothed all around the building, except in the Porch of the 
Maidens. 


(c) The upper parts of the tori of all the bases unfluted. 
(d) The columns unfluted, except those on the west wall. 


1 I, col. 11, 11. 68, 70; VIII, 1. 48; X, col. 1, 1.19; col. u, ll. 27, 41; XI, col. i, |. 33. 

? See also Ch. I, pp. 64-66 and Piare XV, where half-columns are restored on the inside. The upper radius of 
these columns is 0.26 m. (Fig. 44) and consequently the length of the anthemion is 0.817 m. This includes, however, 
the part directly below the volutes (0.165 m. on each side), where the carving must have been completed before the 
capital was set in place above. If the length of this finished carving (0.33 m.) is deducted from the total length of the 


anthemion (0.817 m.), there remains a space of 0.487 m. (12 At. ft.) in which the pattern was probably merely 
blocked out (Ch. II, p. 201). 


$ On inserted pieces in general, see Ch. II, pp. 207-213. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 309 


(e) The substructure unsmoothed. 

(f) Portions of the mouldings on some of the inner walls unsmoothed. 

Of the two operations referred to in the heading of this section, — rade axaraxceora xal 
apaBdora,—the former is the final chiselling down of the visible surfaces of masonry, a 
refinement the technique of which is well illustrated by some of the walls of the Propy- 
laea in which this final operation was never carried out. The term is used both for the 
smoothing of flat surfaces and for the smoothing of mouldings, as in lines 69 ff. The vertical 
surfaces of masonry which received this treatment are divided into three parts: 6 rotyos (1. 
56), of 6pAocrarar (1.60), é xpemis (1.67). The term rotyos is here limited to the main part of the 
wall, that composed of riivOor of the normal height, one foot and a half. The lowest course; 
ot épfocrarar, which was composed of blocks three feet high and projecting slightly from 
the line of 7\ivdx above, is considered as a separate member. ‘E xpemis designates, as 
usually in building inscriptions, that part of the substructure which was above ground and 
visible, i.e., in the case of the Erechtheum, the steps and the stylobate. The moulded course 
immediately below the orthostates sometimes receives a special name. Here it is probably 
included under the term ozeipa (see below). The report shows, by what it leaves unsaid no 
less than by what it says, that the surfaces which were least exposed to injury were smoothed 
first. Except for the south wall, which was not all in place, the interior walls in general 
had evidently received their final dressing; on the outside the work was complete down to 
the orthostates on the east, north, and west walls, and on that part of the south wall which 
was enclosed by the Porch of the Maidens. As regards the course of orthostates, the use 
of the phrase éx 7é ¢£o6ev shows that those in the interior had been smoothed, but not 
those on the exterior except in the Porch of the Maidens. The statement is not, however, 
absolutely accurate, for the inner orthostates of the north and south walls were never com- 
pletely finished.!_ The whole substructure was unfinished. It is interesting to note that the 
walls were smoothed before the frieze and cornice blocks had been hoisted. 

The second operation referred to by the term apé@6ora causes no difficulty. ‘PéBdwors is 
the regular term for the fluting or channelling of columns, and is applied also to the reeding 
of the tori of Ionic bases (oretpa). Here the word includes not only the bases of the 
columns, but probably also the corresponding moulded course which formed the base of 
the walls. This member, like the bases of the columns of the East Portico, had its upper 
torus fluted. The flutings on the lower part of such a torus were necessarily carved 
before the blocks were set in place; those on the upper part were left until the end to lessen 
the risk of injury. 

The last item (f) referring to work in the interior of the building furnishes the most 
difficult problem in the inscription, because the terms used to designate the various walls 
are obscure. Two facts, however, which have not been grasped by all commentators, may 
be stated with certainty: First, four distinct walls are mentioned, viz.: 


1 See Ch. I, pp. 148, 152. 


310 THE ERECHTHEUM 


(1) 6 rotxos 6 évTds. 
(2) 6 (rotxos 6) & réu Tpooromaio. 
(3) € wapaoras. 


(4) 6 (rotxos 6) mpos 76 AyadpaTos. 


Second, the work to be done on each wall is the smoothing of a moulded course (yoyvtdos 
Nios). This is stated in regard to the first section of wall, and the phrase must be supplied 
with the other items, since the amount of work to be done in each case is measured by 
tetrapodies. Petersen, who attempts a solution of the problem,’ supposes that 70d roixov 70d 
évtos dxardéeora is the heading of the passage, and not used of a definite wall. The eight 
tetrapodies of moulded stone of line 70 may therefore be located anywhere on the interior 
walls, of which, according to him, there are but three. Also, since yoyytAos Aifos in general 
is the first item, the work referred to in the following items must be different, i.e., the smooth- 
ing of flat wall surfaces. It is, however, improbable that when the inner and outer surfaces 
of the main walls (except the unfinished south wall) were smoothed, the inner partitions 
should still be unsmoothed. Moreover, the amount of unsmoothed wall surface could not 
be satisfactorily measured by tetrapodies, especially as the interior walls were of varying 
heights. And, since according to Petersen’s interpretation practically the whole of each 
wall was unsmoothed, there was no need of giving figures at all, let alone such meaningless 
figures as these would be. Finally, the mention of eight tetrapodies of yoyyiAos \ifos un- 
smoothed, without any statement of their location, is contrary to the usage of the inscrip- 
tion, which is definite and specific throughout. We may therefore regard the two proposi- 
tions stated above as correct. 

A further difficulty is caused by the illegibility of some of the numerals as a result of 
the worn condition of the stone. The numerals [lll and either Al! or Alll, as read by 
B. H. Hill, in lines 70 and 72 are clear, but those in lines 74 and 76 cannot be read with 
certainty. As to the reading in line 74, Newton writes ‘‘after rerparodias we find a vertical 
stroke and part of another vertical stroke.’”? O. M. Washburn, who examined the inscrip- 
tion at my request, read AlAS-1.1'. I later read AIAS.| :' on the stone. These readings 
do not conflict with Newton’s statement, but they do not permit the restoration |[1!] 
adopted by Petersen and in I.G., I’, 8372. The second stroke is at such a distance from the 
first that we must read M"i!, or at least seven tetrapodies instead of three. As to the read- 
ing in line 76, Newton says “‘after rerparodias are traces of a numeral which can hardly 
be any other than A. Then follows |.” This was also the opinion of Dr. G. F. Hill, who 
examined the stone for Petersen (op. cit., p. 113). Washburn read AIASI | with the com- 
ment ‘one is certain; two are probable.” My notes made before the stone give AIA! |. 
On an excellent photograph of this portion of the inscription I can see no trace of A. I 
therefore prefer the reading [|, while admitting its uncertainty. 


1 Burgtempel, pp. 113 ff. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS oll 


If the image of Athena is assumed to have stood in the East Cella, the wall “towards 
the image” is certainly the rear wall of that cella; and it is possible that the statement 
refers to its east face only. The second and third walls must then be sought in the western 
part of the building, since we have no reason for supposing that the East Cella was sub- 
divided. It follows that the first wall must also be sought in the western part; and it can 
only have been the main cross-wall, the ‘‘interior wall’’ par excellence, i.e., the west face of 
the wall whose east face is described below as “towards the image.’”’ The length, 32 feet, 
suits the interpretation, since the wall was 30 feet long, and the dimensions are given in 
round numbers of tetrapodies. It may be objected that the number of tetrapodies of un- 
finished moulding on both faces of the wall would be included in one item. It is, of course, 
true, as Petersen remarks (op. cit., p. 114), that in the case of the external walls rotxos 
designates not one or the other surface, but the whole wall with its two surfaces. The state- 
ment in lines 57 ff., rév totxov rév pds voto dvéuo axaraxoecror, refers to both faces of the 
wall; and where only one face was referred to, the fact could be made clear by the addition 
of és 76 é0 (line 52) or éx 76 éxooHev (line 61). The cross-wall, however, had no inner and 
outer faces; it was the end wall of the East Cella or of the western compartment according 
to where one happened to be. It would therefore be natural for the commissioners, when 
they were noting the state of the two low partition walls in the western part (see below), to 
include the west face of the cross-wall which was in sight, and then, going around to the 
Kast Cella, to note the state of its east face as a separateitem. And, if one accepts the four 
items as referring to four wall surfaces, the equation 6 rotxos 6 évrés = 6 mpds Td &ydAuaros 
seems unavoidable, for a fourth interior wall cannot easily be imagined. The work to be 
done on both surfaces of the cross-wall was the smoothing of the epicranitis course, or of 
the crowning moulding of the epistyle, more probably the former. 

The western part of the temple was subdivided by a screen wall about twelve feet high, 
running north and south, and probably pierced by two openings. The inner compartment 
thus formed seems in the original construction, though perhaps not in the Roman res- 
toration, to have been further subdivided into two rooms by a central partition, of the 
same height, running east and west. The evidence afforded by the remains in favor of two 
such inner rooms has already been given (pp. 151 ff.). To this is to be added the evidence 
of the four marble doors (@ipa: \i@var) mentioned in column u, ll. 87 ff. These doors 
cannot be placed anywhere in the external walls of the temple; their dimensions fit neither 
the door from the Porch of the Maidens, nor the small door in the west wall, nor the small 
door leading from the North Portico into the Pandroseum. Their width, 23 feet, makes it 
clear that there were two doors, each with two valves. Their height, 8} feet, suits the 
height of the screen wall. It isa reasonable assumption that these two doors were in the 
screen wall running north and south, and that they afforded access to the two inner rooms. 
It remains to determine which of the two screen walls is the “wall in the Prostomiaion”’ 
and which the ‘‘ Parastas.”’ 


312 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Tlapacrds occurs in building inscriptions with the following meanings: (1) door-jamb, 
(2) anta, (3) pilaster, (4) wall decorated with pilasters. T he first three of these meanings 
do not concern us here since the moulding on the Parastas was at least twelve feet, and 
probably twenty-four or more feet long. But the fourth meaning may throw some light on 
the problem. In the building accounts of the temple of Apollo at Didyma repeated mention 
is made of } pixws tapacras, }) Bdpeos rapacras, 7 vorios Tapacras and } rponveuos Tapagras, 
and these terms are evidently used to designate the interior faces of the cella walls, which 
were decorated with pilasters; 7 wixvos tapacras is the name for the west wall, 7 mponvepos 
mapaorads for the east wall.1 On the evidence of these inscriptions the Parastas in the 
Erechtheum seems more likely to have been the cross-wall pierced by two doors — perhaps 
with elaborate jambs and pilasters — than the wall dividing the two interior chambers, 
which, so far as we know, was plain.? On the other hand the length of moulded stone 
unfinished on the ‘‘wall in the Prostomiaion,’”’ 48 feet, can more easily be brought into 
connection with the cross-wall which was 30 feet long than with the inner partition which 
was only 18 feet long.® 

The name IIpoorouatov, which occurs only here, has been variously explained, but there 
is now almost a consensus of opinion that it designates one of the interior divisions of the 
western part of the building. The earlier theories, which are noted by Newton (.c., p. 93), 
no longer need to be considered, since they are generally based on the incorrect reading, 
éxros, in line 69. Michaelis (Ath. Mitt., II, 1877, p. 29) and Petersen (zbid., X, 1885, pp. 4, 
5) identified it with the westernmost of the three divisions of the Erechtheum, Furtwingler 
(Meisterwerke, p. 196) with the central division. Michaelis supposed the name to be due to 
the several entrances (c7rdéu1a) into this room. It was, in fact, a sort of vestibule or ante- 
chamber; but the explanation is improbable, and was later given up by its author (Jb. 
Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 18, 63, 81 ff.). Petersen, with greater probability, explained it as 
the room in front of that containing the orouor, i.e., the mouth or opening into the 0adacca 
of Poseidon. Furtwangler, improving on this, proposed to derive Ipoorouatoy from mpoord- 
puovy on the analogy of zportAawov from rporvAov. The word zpoordmov is not unknown. 
Aeschylus, Suppliants, 3, calls the mouths of the Nile zpocrdu1a NetAov, and the scholia 
explain the term as equivalent to orduia, — “‘duewov 7a orduca dxovew.’’ In Pollux, II, 90, 
it is defined as ‘‘the joining of the lips,’ — 7 eis &\Anda Trav xeLA@v cuuBor} mpocrdmov. The 
mpooromov in the Krechtheum would thus be the opening in the floor above the @4\acca, 
and the Ipoorouatoy (oixnua) would be the room containing the opening. In his latest 

1 Cf. Haussoullier, Revwe de Philologie, XXIX, 1905, p. 258. 

? Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, p. 197, explained it as “die niedrige Pfeilerstellung, welche den ganzen Westraum 
in zwei Teile zerlegte”; but in Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p.17, he proposes to interpret tapacras as “aisle” or “pas- 
sage,” and refers it to the entire western room, the Prostomiaion of Pharr I. For a discussion of this view, see Ch. 
V, p. 470, note 1. 

* It must be kept in mind that the two low partitions, unlike the east cross-wall, did not have the two sets of 


mouldings on epicranitis and epistyle, but were in all probability crowned only by a single course with mouldings, 
such as was used on the west wall below the columns. See Ch. I, pp. 60, 152, 158; Puarn XV. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 313 


discussion of the question (Burgtempel, p. 101) Petersen accepts the derivation from zpo- 
oromov, and identifies the Prostomiaion with the inner (undivided) chamber, which he 
believes contained the 64Xacca or xaopa of Erechtheus.! 

The foregoing discussion of lines 69 to 76 has led to no positive result. While the pas- 
sage must be taken into account in any attempt to explain the inner arrangement of the 
western part of the Erechtheum,? it does not, considered separately, yield any clear answer 
to the problem. 

The inquiry, however, may be carried somewhat farther, and the varying conclusions, 
which follow logically according to the different interpretations given to the terms used in 
the inscription, tested by the other available evidence. Even if this examination does not 
remove all difficulties, it may at least serve to define more closely the limits within which 
a solution must be sought. If the ‘wall in the Prostomiaion’’ was the wall running east 
and west in the central division, and if, furthermore, the Prostomiaion was the room con- 
taining the opening above the @adacca, it follows of necessity that the central division 
was the Prostomiaion and that the @4\acca was beneath one of its two rooms. This con- 
clusion is open to the objection that, as has been already pointed out (pp. 169 ff.), the evi- 
dence from the existing remains, although admittedly scanty, is all against such a position 
for the #4\acc0a, which is much more likely to have been in the western room and not 
improbably in its southwest corner (PLarres I, XV). If, however, the 64\acca has been 
correctly placed — and in view of the evidence already adduced this assumption can only 
be overthrown by definite counter-evidence,* — it is clear that the Prostomiaion cannot 
be merely the two central rooms. It must be either the western room alone — on the 
whole the more probable view and the one adopted in Chapter I, — or else the collective 
name for the entire western division, which might’ well be considered as a unit, since the 
walls between the rooms were merely low partitions (PLATE XV). On the former hypoth- 
esis the ‘‘ wall in the Prostomiaion’’ must, of course, be the west cross-wall, the other wall 
having no connection with the western room; and the same interpretation holds good if the 
Prostomiaion is given the more inclusive definition, since the phrase naturally denotes the 
principal wall in this part of the building and indeed the only one contiguous to all three 
rooms. This view also agrees with the order followed by the Commissioners, who naturally 
recorded these three walls according to their relative importance; — first, the western face 
of the high east cross-wall, then, the lower west cross-wall, and finally, the partition in the 
central division. But can this latter wall be called a Parastas? There is certainly no reason 
to suppose that it was decorated with pilasters, and the name alone is hardly sufficient 

1 Elderkin, Problems in Periclean Buildings, pp. 19 ff., shares the dislike of the scholiast quoted above for the 
form rpocrou.or; he therefore coins the word Srou.atev as a name for the chamber with the well, and makes Ipo-croptatov 
the room before the Srou:atov (a derivation analogous to that formerly proposed by Petersen), thus getting a name for 
each of the two chambers running east and west which he restores in this part of the building. 

2 For the evidence afforded by the existing remains see Ch. I, pp. 151-171. 


8 The testimony of Pausanias (I, 26, 5) is ambiguous and can be interpreted to support either position of the 
6adacca; see Ch. V, pp. 487, 491 f. 


314 THE ERECHTHEUM 


reason for assuming their presence. The explanation is rather to be sought in the use of 
the word to denote not merely the antae but also the prolongation of the side walls flank- 
ing the portico of a temple in antis (vaés é rapacrdot),! whence it seems a natural extension 
to apply the name, rapacras, to any relatively short stretch of wall jutting out, like a pi- 
laster, from a main wall. It is true that this use cannot be proved by any unquestionable 
epigraphical evidence, for in the not infrequent cases where a public document is to be 
inscribed éy rf rapaordd: the question must generally be left open whether an anta alone 
is meant or a projecting wall, though when the zapagrds is in a stoa, as sometimes happens, 


the latter meaning seems preferable.’ 


(4) Tue State or THE Nortu Portico. LINEs 77-82 


Little remained to be done here. The ridge beam was apparently already in place, but 
the rafters (c@exioxor) and cross-pieces (iudvres) were still to be laid. With the addition 
of the marble tiles the structure would be complete. It is probable that the marble reliefs 
of the frieze were still to be executed, as well as the acroteria of the north gable. And, as 
had been noted earlier in the inscription, the columns were not channeled and the bases 
were not finished. The altar of the Thyechoiis had not been placed. Four stones be- 
longing to it are mentioned in column uJ, lines 95-100, among the blocks lying half- 
worked on the site. The position and restoration of this altar are discussed in Ch. I, pp. 
105-110 and below, p. 318. 


(5) Tue Stare or THE Porcyu or THe Maipens. Lines 83-92 


This porch was practically finished, and one of the two pieces of work noted as remaining 
to be done was never carried out: the rosettes (kéAxar) on the epistyle still remain flat, 
raised discs.* 


With line 93 begins the second part (B) of the report — the list of stones lying on the 
site. As has already been remarked, these fall into three groups, as follows: — 

(1) Blocks which were fully worked, and ready to be hoisted into place — Méwa 
TavTedds éxoepyacpeva ha xauat. IT, col. 1, ll. 93-100; continuation, after a break of about 
thirty lines, in III, ll. 1, 2. 


1 Vitruvius, IIT, 2, 1. Euripides, Iph. Taur., 1159, ava, éx’ adirod dda odv & mapacracw; Phoen., 415, vdé jv, 
"Adpacrovu 5° 7AGov eis tapacradas. In both these passages the word indicates the space between the side walls. See also 
Bétticher, Tektonik der Hellenen?, I, 198; Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 117. 

? "Ey rH wapaorads, C.1.G., 2672, 2675, 2677, 2692. ’Ev 79 wapacradc Tis oroas, Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci In- 
scriptiones Selectae, 1, 46 (Halicarnassus); Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, 19,1. 45; ef. 49, 1. 7, wap’ 
abrny TH Tapacraéa THs orods. The rapacras in the precinct of Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis would seem to have 
been inside the building, and so probably a wall, for gold ornaments would hardly have been hung on an external anta 
(1.G., Il, 758, a, col. 111, ll. 32, 37); see the plan of the precinct with its two stoas, J.-M., Atlas, pl. XVI, 3; D’Ooge, 
Acropolis, p. 286, fig. 124. 

3 See Ch. I, p. 113. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 315 


(2) Half-worked blocks — heyiepya xauai, with a statement of the work remaining to 
be done on each — III, ll. 3 ff.; continuation. after a break of about nine lines, in II, col. 
11, ll. 8-100; continued probably for a few lines in the break of about seventeen lines between 
II, col. um, and IV. 

- (3) Blocks still in the rough, as they came from the quarries. The heading of this group 
and the beginning of the list are to be placed in the break between II, col. 1, and IV; the 
list is continued through IV and Va. The estimate of the number of lines missing in the 
three intervals is repeated from Dinsmoor, I. c., p. 246. The existence of the third group is 
proved, as Dinsmoor has observed, by the fact that the blocks in IV and Va have simply 
their dimensions given without a statement of the work to be done. 

Presumably all, or nearly all, of the blocks needed to complete the building were on 
hand. They include (1) the blocks noted as missing in part A, (2) the Eleusinian blocks 
for the frieze and their backers, (8) the blocks of the horizontal and raking cornices, 
(4) the tympanum blocks and their backers, (5) blocks for the east and west walls of the 
East Cella, corresponding to the frieze, cornice, and tympanum, (6) various details, such as 
the blocks of the altar in the North Portico, etc. Most of the first series were probably 
mentioned in the break below column 1 of inscription II, in the list of blocks completely 
worked. At least two of the epicranitis blocks, however, came under the second heading 
(III, ll. 4 ff.), and one under the third heading (IV, 1. 3). Apparently, also, one of the 
dvriuopo. of the epistyle (cf. II, col. 1, 1. 26) is mentioned under the third heading (IV, 
1,10). Under the first heading were included probably a number of the blocks of the frieze 
and cornice. More than half of these are listed in the second group, and one in the third 
group (LV, |. 24). 

Column 1, Il. 8-24.— A list of blocks whose length varies, but whose height (2 ft.) 
and thickness (1 ft.) remain constant. These two dimensions make it plain that the pas- 
sage has to do with Eleusinian blocks of the frieze, for nowhere else were blocks of this size 
called for in such numbers. Those referred to in lines 8-10 were presumably eight feet 
long: blocks of this length are known to have been placed on the north wall (cf. VIII, 
]. 29). Four six-foot blocks of the east front are in existence (Fig. 12), and at least five 
more were placed on the south wall (cf. VIIa, 1. 4). The southeast corner block is about 
three feet and three-quarters long, and may therefore be one of the four-foot blocks men- 
tioned in line 16. The block adjoining it on the south wall is now four feet and a half long; 
it may be one of the five-foot blocks cut down. The combined length of the frieze blocks 
here listed, excluding the eight-foot blocks whose number is not known, is 97 feet, or about 
half of the frieze. ‘Apuds (joint) is the term regularly used to denote vertical surfaces of 
contact. One of the ends and the back of each block are described as ‘“‘not worked out”’ (Il. 
8, 13, 18), or ‘‘blank”’ (1. 23). The work to be done was the preparation of these blank sur- 
faces as surfaces of contact by smoothing a strip along the top and sides and hollowing out 


316 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the centre slightly, an operation which it is convenient to describe by the term anathyrosis, 


coined from the verb davabvupobv.! 
Lines 25-72, 80-86. — A list of half-worked cornice blocks, as follows: — 


22 blocks of the normal dimensions, 4X3 X14 ft. 
2 angle blocks at the east end, 6X33 X14 ft. 
1 angle block at the west end (A), 73X32X14 ft. 
1 angle block at the west end (B), 6X34X1z¢ ft. 
2 blocks of the raking cornice, 2443 X14 ft. 


The arrangement of the horizontal cornice is discussed below, in the commentary on X, 
col. 1 (p. 356). Other blocks of the raking cornice, of the same dimensions as those listed 
here, are mentioned below among the unworked stones (IV, 1. 6). The half-worked blocks 
are in various stages of completion, the work remaining to be done being of two kinds: — 
(1) the smoothing of the visible surfaces, including those of the mouldings. This is called 
he deta épyacia (Il. 40, 48, 57, 66, 83, 85), and is also described by the formula éxzezoveyéva 
a&vev kararopes (1. 27), or Neca exreToveneva dvev kararopes (1.51). (2) The carving in relief (kara- 
roué, ll. 27, 51) of the mouldings which were left uncarved (d7yera, ll. 30, 34, 37, 71) or 
blank (apya, ll. 41, 42, 45, 59, 60, 62) after the first operation. Each block had a leaf-and- 
tongue moulding (xvydriov) and a bead-and-reel (aorpayados) at the bottom, and an egg- 
and-dart (xvya7vov) and bead-and-reel at the top. This explains the fact that on some 
blocks the length of moulding to be carved is greater than the length of the block. 

Line 49, 7év a6 rés otods. That this phrase applies not only to the four normal blocks, 
but also to the remaining cornice blocks of the list, i.e., the four angle geisa, is shown by 
the fact that the angle blocks of the west end are so described in X, col. 1, line 26. In view 
of the various interpretations of the phrase which have been proposed, it will be well to give 
here a list of all the blocks which are mentioned in the inscriptions as being ‘‘from the 
stoa’’: 


4 geisa, 4X31} ft., IT, col. m1, 1. 49. 
6 geisa, 4X3X14 ft., X, col. 1, ]. 22. 
2 east angle geisa, 6X34 14 ft., II, col. 1, 1. 53. 
1 west angle geison, 73X33 X14 ft., II, col. m1, 1. 64; X, col. 1, 1. 29. 
1 west angle geison, 63% (33) X13 ft., IT, col. 1, 1. 67; X, col. 1, 1. 26. 
6 tympanum blocks, 7X34 X1 ft., II, col. um, 1. 73. 
2 tympanum blocks, 5X33 X1 ft., II, col. m, 1. 77. 
2 marble frieze backers, 32X22 ft., VIIIa, 1. 7. 
4 marble frieze backers, 4X2 2 ft., VIII, Il. 24, 32. 
16 Aeginetan frieze backers, 4X 214 ft., VIIIa, Il. 13, 37. 


1 On the preparation of surfaces of contact, see Ch. II, p. 184. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 317 


The phrase “from the stoa”’ is susceptible of two interpretations: (1) it describes the 
place where some of the building material was stored. Most of the earlier commentators 
held this view, Miller and Boeckh supposing the stoa to be the North Portico, Thiersch the 
East Portico, Schoene (Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 50) the Porch of the Maidens, Choisy (Etudes, 
p. 101) the Prostomiaion, or vestibule. (2) It may designate, as Leake was the first to 
suggest (Topography of Athens?, p. 583), some separate building, perhaps in ruins, from 
which wrought stones were taken. This was accepted by Michaelis (Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, 
p. 353, note 1). Dorpfeld (¢bid., X XII, 1897, p. 166) identified the stoa with the colonnade 
of the old temple of Athena, which, in his opinion, was taken down at this time. Michaelis 
(Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 18, note 11) thought that the stoa was an earlier building, 
perhaps the Pandroseum, which stood west of the Erechtheum. B. H. Hill has suggested 
that a fifth-century structure near the north wall of the Acropolis west of the Erechtheum, 
at the point marked ‘‘45”’ on J.—M., Ailas, pl. VII, which was completely changed in plan 
very early, probably in the fifth century, was the stoa of the inscriptions. Only the founda- 
tions of this building now exist. It may further be urged in favor of the second theory that 
there is no adequate reason why in inscriptions VIII and X blocks should be described as 
having been stored in a special place, whereas if they were old blocks re-used, the fact might 
well be noted.1_ The use of the phrase amo rés orods in the report also seems curious if the 
blocks were then lying in the stoa. It would seem more natural to have listed the stones 
as év r& oroadt, distinguishing them from those lying in the open— yayai. The only argu- 
ment in favor of the first theory is the improbability that an earlier building should have 
possessed so many different members, including a cornice block of abnormal dimensions, 
suitable for a second use. 

Line 73, aiertato.. The laying of the blocks of the tympanum is recorded in the ac- 
count of 409/8 B.c., inscription X, col. 1, ll. 7-42, and the discussion of the problem will be 
found in the commentary on that passage (p. 359). 

Line 87. @ipa: \i@wa. The position and probable restoration of these doors have been 
discussed in Ch. I, p. 158. Their material, Pentelic marble, is unusual, but not unparalleled. 
The doors of the Erechtheum, like those of the Hellenistic tombs already cited,? were evi- 
dently carved to imitate the forms of wooden doors with vertical stiles and horizontal rails 
(‘vyé) forming panels; and the rails were decorated with pieces of black stone (Aifos wédas) 
set into them, probably in imitation of nail heads. 

Line 93. és 76t hurepOipor r6u rpds €o. We have seen that the two windows in the east wall 
had marble consoles which were made separately and dowelled to the lintels, whereas the 
door probably had a metal framing.’ The console listed here must therefore be assigned to 

1 For the use of material from old buildings, see the inscriptions from Eleusis, where the blocks of the apxaios vews 
are regularly included among the oxetn at the disposal of the émurara, Cavaignac, T'résor d’Eleusis, p. 8, no. 8, pls. 
Il, UI; I.G., 12, 313, 314. 


2 See Ch. I, p. 158, note 3. 
3 Ch. I, pp. 35, 41, 44. 


318 THE ERECHTHEUM 


one of the windows, the word brép$upov being applicable to the lintel of a window as well 
as to that of a door. | 
Line 95. 6 Bouér z[ai] ro Ovex. This altar must be brought into connection with the 
openings in the roof and floor of the North Portico.’ It is improbable that it stood entirely 
to the east or west of the opening in the floor. If it had stood north of the opening, where 
the space is sufficient, it would surely have left traces on the pavement, which is here in 
good preservation. There is not space for it to the south of the opening, though the un- 
finished course below the orthostates of the wall of the porch at this point suggests that some- 
thing stood near it. The most probable hypothesis seems to be that the altar was placed 


—_ 


Figure 185. PLAN OF ALTAR OF THE THYECHOUS 


over, and enclosing, the orifice in the floor, and that its top had a corresponding opening 
cut in it. The four blocks listed in the inscription are presumably the walls of the altar.’ 
They can be fitted together in various ways, one of the possible combinations being that 
shown in Figure 185. This gives the altar over-all dimensions of 4X5 ft., excluding the 
mouldings at the top and bottom. The opening would measure 23 ft. Such a structure 
would fit the available space satisfactorily. In size and general appearance it cannot have 
differed greatly from the altar of Athena Hygieia, still partially in situ, just east of the 
Propylaea. 

The question whether this altar is to be identified with that of Zeus Hypatos, men- 
tioned by Pausanias as being ‘‘before the entrance,” is discussed in Ch. V, pp. 490 f. 

The title of the officiating priest — Ovnxéov — is inscribed on one of the marble seats in 
the theatre of Dionysus (I.G., III, 244). Newton notes (l.c., p. 86) that 6unxéos “‘ was per- 
haps the popular spelling, after the false analogy of ypvcoyéos and similar words: whereas 
dunkoos is derived not from yéw but from xaiw.”’ 

1 On the crypt and altar, see also Ch. I, pp. 104-110; Figs. 66, 67. 


» The traces of letters in ll. 99, 100 after rpur— are faint but fairly certain. They were first detected and in- 
terpreted by B. H. Hill in September, 1923. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 319 


The last twenty-five lines of the report, preserved on fragments IV and Va, contain 
a part of the list of unworked blocks lying on the site (cf. above, p. 315). 

The restoration of lines 3-12 presents no difficulties. That of the first item, lines 3-5, 
was suggested by Dinsmoor, l.c., p. 246, note 1. 

Line 10. dvtipopos. Cf. the two blocks dyripopo. rots émucruAios and of the same 
dimensions, mentioned in II, col. 1, 1. 26. 

Line 18. kayridos. The use of the adjective, which means “bent,” suggests that the 
stone may have been the kopudaios, or central block of a pediment. According to inscrip- 
tion X, col. 1, |. 28, the xopydatos of the west pediment was of these dimensions. The miss- 
ing word at the beginning of line 17 may therefore be restored as aiertatos or kopudaios. 

Line 24. The Eleusinian blocks of the frieze are elsewhere given as one foot thick (II, 
col. 11, ll. 13, 17, 22; VIII a, ll. 4, 22, 30). In VIIIa, ll. 29 ff., the laying of four frieze 
blocks eight feet long on the north wall is recorded. The block here listed may therefore 
have been one of the blocks intended for this wall. 

Line 26. The position of the two Eleusinian blocks measuring six by three feet remains 
obscure. 


Vs, VII. FRAGMENTS OF SPECIFICATIONS 


Vs. Height and style of letters and spacing of lines asin No. VII. The letters, 0.007 m. 
high, begin 0.047 m. from the left edge. Not stoichedon. The last line is 0.15 m. from the 
bottom of the stone. Dinsmoor, F. 

Facsimile, Pharr XLVII. 

VII. Fragment of white marble, 0.26 m. high, 0.29 m. wide, 0.11 m. thick. Original 
right edge preserved; broken at the other edges and at the back, where it fits III; cf. above, 
p. 281. The letters, 0.007 m. to 0.008 m. high, begin 0.065 m. from the present left edge. 
At the bottom a space 0.025 m. high, uninscribed. Not stoichedon. Found in 1835 in 
excavations on the Acropolis, east of the Propylaea. In the National Museum. 

Boeckh, Archaeologisches Intelligenzblatt der Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, 1835, col. 283, 
No. 8, from a copy by Ross (also in his Gesammelte Schriften, VI, p. 447, No. 8). Pittakis, 
L’ancienne Athénes, p. 341. ’Ed. ’Apx., Nos. 232, 2259. Rangabé, Ant. hellén., 88. I.G., I., 
282; I, 372. Choisy, Etudes, pp. 113 ff. J—M., App. Ep., 23. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, 
pl. I (new readings). Dinsmoor, EK. Cf. Fabricius, De architectura graeca, p. 3. 

Facsimile, Phatre XLVII. 

Variant Readings. L.1o0m.-Boeckh. L. 3. 21A...-NTA Kirchhoff. L. 4. KOL Boeckh. 
OMALINAI Rangabé. OMALENAI Pittakis. L. 6. ETITA Rangabé. L. 8. "PANAI Kirchhoff. 


TOKC Pittakis. L. 10. KOL Pittakis. KOLl Kirchhoff. L. 12. KIA Rangabé. L.13. 2TA Ran- 
gabé. ITA Pittakis. \TA Kirchhoff. 


320 


Or 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


ravra épalpysoas  - —- - ----- 7-7 
Kal ouvrederalt a fe 
Apouov épyatlero. —------- Evi? 
guv 76 weya[ —- -------~-7- 7-7 O 
5 Pavocrparos [ eee) a ee 
ratres Tos [ —- - - ----- TT OT oe 


Nécas Kall aroxe|éoat = 


VII 


Tov dlorpayaldov €[r]vylo]upsoar rapladaBov- 

, A , A 2 \ A 
Ta Teropye[uulévov' Ta TAatova Ta ell Tas 
kvwakidas[.. Jol. . . lovta dvaxcéoale kal 
ko|\Neoar Kall hlouadi[o]ar mpos Tov Kavov[a 
t]év NAuvov: tov aa[t]payadov érvyouds- 
gat tapadapovra Te[Tlopvevpévov éri T[as 
KJAtwaktoas: TO xabAOv TO YoyyvAov 
— — — te|rpavat kal mpooxoANeoa: TO K- 

\ A la EA A A > 

—----- lua ro hurd yaortépa éxi 76 €[.- 
—— i Kall tov dvuxa apuocavTa KoN[A- 
éoar Kal dvaxcéolar Kal Neravar TA AOLTE 
—-—------- rev] cedtda Kal Tas KALMAKI- 
das kai Ta KaAvpplaTa éxrroléoat Kal Ta A- 


—-—--+----- ] kal xouvredéoar. 


The fragments Vs and VII are from the inscription on the reverse of the Chandler 
stele. VB belongs near the bottom of the first column; VII contains the last fourteen 
lines of the second column. The inscription gave detailed specifications for the construction 
of a wooden, coffered ceiling, presumably the ceiling of the East Cella, the carrying out of 
which is recorded in the account of 409/8 B.c. Since the technical terms and formulae used 
are for the most part employed again in the account, no separate commentary need be 
given here.! The mention of two workmen, Dromon and Phanostratos, in lines 3 and 5 of 
VB is unexpected in an inscription of this nature. It is possible that they were employed 


COMMENTARY 


1 See below, pp. 362-368. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 321 


To fit them all upon - - - —- —- —- - - - 
and to complete — — — — — —- —- —- —-- - 
PrOniOn ANAS ae eS 
the large frame — — —- —- ------- 
REP NSUOSETA LORY ee ee eS 
Biieithes eee te ee 
to glue and to smoothe — — — — - - - - 


VII 


To dowel on the astragalus, having received it 
turned in the lathe. Having (put in place) the 
frames which go on the “ladders,” to polish them 
and glue them and true them up, tested by the stone 
5 straight-edge. To dowel the astragalus on 
the ‘“‘ladders,” having received it turned 
in the lathe. The wooden moulding 
— — — — to bore and glue on. The 
—----- that underneath the belly upon the 
0 ----- and to fit the moulding and glue 
and polish and smoothe the remainder. 
—----- the beam and the “‘ladders’”’ 
and to finish the coffer-lids (?) and the 
—----- and to complete. 


to make models of the coffers. The text cannot be completely restored. In VII, line 8, 
Kirchhoff read [hi]é[ptc]avra, which is perhaps to be accepted. If so, the stone-cutter mis- 
spelled the word; for remains of the letter o are clear on the stone. The word yaorvp (1. 9) 
occurs in a Delian inscription containing specifications for the construction of a wooden 
ceiling (B.C.H., X XIX, 1905, p. 460, 1. 7: ra rpjyara rév yaorpay), but the meaning of the 
term remains obscure. 


322 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Part II. Tue Accounts or 409/8 B.c. 


Numbers Nat. Mus. Dinsmoor J-M. ; Other publications 

VIL ee. 6690 G 24 1.G., I, 321 = LP, 373 

TX See ee 67344 H 25 I.G., I, Suppl., 321, 1, p. 148 = I?, 373 
ene 6734 I 26 1.G., I, Suppl., 321, 2, p. 150 = I2, 373 
Ville 6690 C 4 A.J.A., X, 1906, p. 2, pl. I 
Koes 67348 7 27 1.G., I, Suppl., 321, p. 75 = F, 373 
D0 UE enes 12563 Md it: Unpublished 


The five fragments of stelae, Nos. VIII—XII, are shown to be parts of one inscription 
by the similarity of the marble and the uniformity of the letters in size, spacing, and style. 
The inscriptions on the obverse of VIII and on IX, X, and XI have long been known, and 
repeatedly published. The existence of letters on the reverse of VIII was first discovered 
in 1905 by Professor Heberdey, Dr. Heermance, and Professor Washburn, and a facsimile 
was published by the latter in A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. III. The small fragment XII was dis- 
covered in 1912 by Dr. Kurt Miiller, and identified by him as a part of this account. It is 
here published for the first time. 

From their contents Michaelis (Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, pp. 359 ff.) was able to establish 
convincingly the order of the four fragments known to him. VIII 4, which deals with the 
setting in place of the frieze blocks, is to be placed first. The work here recorded must 
belong to one of the earliest prytanies of the year, for we know that at the time of the re- 
sumption of operations in 409 B.c. the walls were complete up to and including the epistyle, 
except for some blocks near the southwest corner, and that at the time of the writing of the 
report the commissioners had already caused three blocks of the frieze to be set in place.! 
The contents of [IX show that it comes next, and that the lacuna between the two fragments 
is a Short one (ten to twenty lines). It contains the accounts for the placing of the frieze on 
the west wall and a summary of the work done on all four walls. The fact that the left 
edge of IX very closely resembles that of VIII in its treatment as a surface of contact helps 
to prove that it is to be placed below VIII, as a continuation of the same column. Fragment 
X, which deals with the setting in place of the cornice (col. 1) and the blocks of the east 
and west pediments (col. 11), is to be placed after IX. The series ends with XI, which is 
concerned chiefly with work on the ceiling and roof. The scanty remains on VIII B and 
XII give no clear indication as to the places to be assigned to them in the account. 

While the order of the more important fragments was established by Michaelis, the 
number of stelae, their original dimensions, and the number of columns of writing on each 
remained uncertain. Frickenhaus (A.J.A., X, 1906, p. 14) assumed that each stone had 
three columns. But in X the space from the left-hand margin of the third column to the 
right-hand edge of the stone is considerably greater than the width of one column, so that 
for this stone at least, and probably for the others, at least four columns must be assumed. 
In Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, p. 319, fig. 1, I suggested that there were originally four 

ae H, col. 1, 1. 40, and the remarks above, p. 301. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 323 


stelae, each with four columns, VIII and IX belonging to the second stele, X to the third, 
and XI tothefourth. The existence of the first stele, though no fragments of it were known, 
seemed to be proved by the anathyrosis cuttings on the left edges of VIII and IX. This 
theory has, however, been disproved by Dinsmoor (A.J.A., XVII, 1913, pp. 247 ff., fig. 2). 
He gives good reasons for believing that VIII a and IX are from the first column of the 
account, that there were only two stelae, and that each had five columns of writing.! 

That the stelae had five columns follows from the fact that VIII, IX, and X unques- 
tionably belong together. As has already been observed, IX is to be placed below VIII. 
Heberdey, quoted by Washburn, l.c., thought that IX and X ‘‘are parts of a single inscrip- 
tion and may be fitted together.” The second part of this statement is incorrect, as I 
showed, Ath. Mitt.,1.c. But Dinsmoor justly defends the first part, which is amplified by 
Washburn as follows: ‘‘From the line of direction of the top of the fragments, from their 
thickness, and from their nature at the back, there can be no doubt, to one who examines 
the actual stones, that they belong together.’ The relation of the three fragments can 
hardly have been other than that indicated in Dinsmoor’s drawing (l.c., p. 249, fig. 2) here 
reproduced (Fig. 186). 

For the problems raised by the anathyrosis cuttings on the left edges of VIII and IX, 
and by the fact that VIII is opisthographic, while XI is not, Dinsmoor proposes the fol- 
lowing solution: ‘‘As in all previous building accounts, e.g., those of the Parthenon, the 
Propylaea, and probably also the original work on the Erechtheum, it was intended that 
the accounts should be inscribed on the obverse and reverse of a single slab; with the gradual 
lengthening of the prytany accounts, however, both obverse and reverse had been occupied 
while yet two prytanies, perhaps, remained to be inscribed. There was no alternative but 
to set up a second stele, to the left of the first with an anathyrosis joint between, and to con- 
tinue on its reverse the accounts of the final prytanies, while the obverse remained blank. 
The reverse of G (VIII) was probably concerned with the stonework forming the beginning 
of the ninth prytany at the bottom of col. x, while J (XI) contains parts of cols. x1m-— 
xv belonging to the tenth prytany.”’ This reconstruction of the stelae must be accepted 
as the only one which accounts logically for the evidence. The fragment VIII is from the 
first column of the inscription. According to Dinsmoor’s calculation there would be suffi- 
cient space in the missing upper part of the column for the recording of the minimum amount 
of work that must have preceded that described in VIII. He finds that it could have been 
written in 95 lines of text (l.c., p. 250, note 1). 

The date of the inscription is fixed with certainty. Its contents show that it is earlier 
than the account preserved in Nos. XIII ff., which is that of the year 408/7 B.c., and later 
than the report of the commission, which is dated in the first prytany of 409/8 B.c. It 
follows that it must be the account of this same year, 409/8 B.c. 


1 Dinsmoor, l.c., p. 248, note 1, observes that Bannier, Rh. Mus., 1906, p. 226, had already restored the stele with 
five columns, though on incorrect reasoning. 


324 THE ERECHTHEUM 


VIII. Marble slab, 0.555 m. high, 0.275 m. wide, 0.154 m, thick, broken at the top, 
bottom, and one side. The left edge (of face A) is dressed as a surface of contact. Inscribed 
on both faces. Bought in 1865 by the Athenian Archaeological Society of G. Philippides. 
In the National Museum. 

Face A. Schéne, Hermes, IV, 1869, pp. 37-55 (cf. p. 140), with the use of a copy by 
Koumanoudes and notes by Koehler. J.G., I, 321; I’, 373. Choisy, Etudes, pp. 100 ff. 
J.-M., App. Ep., 24. Roberts-Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, II, 118. Washburn-Frickenhaus, 
A.J.A., X, 1906, pp. 4 ff., pl. II. Caskey, Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, pp. 320 ff. Dins- 


moor, G. 
Face B. Washburn, l.c., p. 2, pl. ILI. 
Facsimiles, Phatm XLVIII. 


Variant Readings. Face A. L.2 “4"N Schone. L. 3 2AA.s1 Schéne. AAAt'l Washburn. L. 4 
KO Schéne, Washburn. L.5 OIF\ \A Washburn. L.7 TA OST: ¥C Schéne. TA” O2TO *' Wash- 
burn. L.8 MC I Schoéne. L. 9 ZIFOA Schone. L. 10 IIOBO Schéne, Washburn. L. 11 UNA 
Schone, Washburn. \:=IMC1‘ Schéne. L. 12 ?P'l-ET Schone. :?'-FT Washburn. L. 14 HY: 
Schone. HY Washburn. L. 15 A¥O= Washburn. L. 16 2ONT Washburn. L. 17 FI!''l? Schéne. 
H'l? Washburn. E° »<A Schéne. EC \n=A Washburn. L. 19 AYM Schéne, Washburn. L. 
20 “OL Schone, Washburn. AAAATFEEFFE? Washburn. L. 21 KO= 'Schéne. KOZ Washburn. 
L. 22 AH/f¢ Washburn. L. 23 FIIS Schone. FIZAN Kirchhoff. FFINANTIOE Washburn. L. 
24 iO’ “OITON TA” Schone. OOOITON.FTeL:.IOYM Kirchhoff. O’TOITON f ~E~~TO\ 
Washburn. L. 26 Tli= Schone, Washburn. L. 28 ONKAI Washburn. L. 29 TOI®@ Schone. 
KOZOK Schéne. KO OK Washburn. L. 32 ATA----=f Schone. ATA: ===>=()3 arching: 
ATA” 4 YOr Washburn. TENTE! Kirchhoff, Washburn. L. 33 T<~ Washburn. TP/ Schone, 
Washburn. L. 35 OI[1 Schone. O!'t. Washburn. L. 86 1TIOEMAT Washburn. Al “©~ \Schéne. 
\l X3< Washburn. L. 37 \TOIE~~ Washburn. L. 38 OAA Schéne. L. 39 “ONTP Schone. 
OB---ONTF! Washburn. L. 40 .l:PAIA Schone. \ PIEPAIA Washburn. L.41 \ENO! Washburn. 
L. 42 NIEIK/ Washburn. L. 43 TOIXO Schone, Washburn. 


Face B. Washburn’s readings are as follows: L.2AP. L.70!1 I/. L.S FINI. L.181-PO E<. 
L.14 "ENA TO. L.17 N?C. 1.210 'T'. L223 T. 1.23 4. 124 KG RS eee 
ATA DAG te 


IX. Marble slab, 0.35 m. high, 0.27 m. wide, 0.09 m. thick (back not preserved). 
Broken all round, except for the lower part of the left edge, which is dressed as a surface of 
contact. Found in 1888 built into the “Bastion of Odysseus” at the northwest corner of 
the Acropolis. In the National Museum. 

Lolling, AeXriov ’Apx., 1888, p. 87. Wolters, Ath. Mitt., XIII, 1888, p. 229, from Lolling’s 
copy. Baumgarten, Berl. phil. W., 1888, p. 1257. I.G., I, Suppl. 321, 1 (p. 148); T°, 373. 
J.-M., App. Ep., 25. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new readings). Frickenhaus, ibid., 
pp. 11 ff. Caskey, Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, pp. 322 ff. Dinsmoor, H. 

Facsimile, Phatm XLVIII. 

Variant Readings. L. 1 <1! Lolling. L. 7 PEI!" iLI Lolling. L. 9 WHAL | Lolling. L. 11 


APOIN Lolling. L. 14 (MOS Lolling. L. 15 1:1:A Lolling. L. 17 KOs Lolling. L.18 TP Lolling. 
L. 19 O1L.TE Washburn. L. 20 OX Lolling. L. 28 N:FA Washburn. 


tt to - --  - — - —- + +--+ -- - - 
eae 35 5 2 a Sie 


ie Sea cua ed boew an ee 


wen 8 an rer na mans nn ene nn ee - ----- = -- = +=. 
ne a a ee er a a 


2+ +--+ - -—— -- - - ---- + --— ----- ----- +--+. 
ae a er 


frititrs prc ir aren nr enc 2222 - 


Sasa 


$2Saes SS SSS 


a asthe 
ft pS Ree ee ee ee res 
Shee cates Sere oes Sere eee eee eas 


Bes ene ie ena ase ee nes 
SSS SES SS as seas SS a= 


Soe nenesee 77 


i 
ey Se eee | (Ware ale eh) ee] 


Sen Site | Ree es 


Reverse 


Obverse 


Figurr 186. DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF INSCRIPTIONS VIII-XI 


[325 ] 


326 THE ERECHTHEUM 


X. Marble slab, 0.61 m. high, 0.62 m. wide, 0.12 m. thick, broken on all sides and at 
the back. Found together with No. IX. In the National Museum. 

Lolling, AeAriov ’Apx., 1888, p. 87. Wolters, Ath. Mitt., XIII, 1888, p. 229. Baumgarten, 
Berl. phil. W., 1888, p. 1257. Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, pp. 349 ff. I.G., I, Suppl. 
321, 2 (p. 149); I, 873. J—M., App. Ep., 26. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new 
readings). Frickenhaus, ibid., pp. 9 ff. Caskey, Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, pp. 334 fi. 
Dinsmoor, I. 

On a bit of mortar adhering to the stone near its right edge is the impression of some 
letters, made, as Kirchhoff observed, by a fragment of the same inscription, belonging at 
the beginning of lines 36-41 of the second column, and now lost. On the facsimile (PLATE 
XLVIII) these letters are shown twice: (a) where their impression is preserved in the 
mortar, (b) in dotted lines where they actually belong. 

Facsimile, Phatrs XLVIII. 


Variant Readings. Col. I. L. 31. | Lolling. 

Col. II. L. 1 AN Lolling. L. 3 NEI Lolling. L. 12 TEIOl Lolling. L. 15 f AON Lolling. 
L. 18 APF: Washburn. L. 29 POAION: Lolling. L. 34 MAAAOZ?:7: Lolling. L. 38 VIAZZAK 
Lolling. L.45 1.7. Lolling. 

Col. III. L.19Y Washburn. L.26 NY Washburn. L. 28A Lolling. L. 2971 Lolling. --X< 
Washburn. L. 32 17/f\ Lolling. 1F4 Washburn. AITAKALY Lolling. L. 33 /T¢\l\N Lolling. 
/.P.. \lAN Washburn. 


XI. Marble slab, 0.72 m. high, 0.555 m. wide, 0.154 m. thick. The original right edge 
and the back are preserved, and are dressed smooth. Found in the quarter of Athens called 
Tvdrixa, and bought by the Archaeological Society. In the National Museum. 


Villa 


[— — — AOopyrxé: Béceos kal érep-| 
[yacias 76 ’EXevowraxé dio pds hor] 
[ra Céta Kal avTiWeuarov: émi rou rpos| 
1 [vdro roixou pélxos [dxror0das, h]bdaos 

dimodas, Oévri] P:tév rerplamo|élialy hex- 
dorev, Lipjove ’Aypua. [olizlIAAA: [héxzo]éa- 
s pexlos, hid[olos diro[5]as, taxos rodva[to- 

5s], Oévr, Zivoly] ’Aypv[d.] of., [PJAAAPEFII(1) Alid- 
alos dirod(a, ax)os (odtatoy), wexos (Sioda, Oévre) [Liwove “Ay |pv[A.] of. 21F FINI 
a|yrbéwara rovrolts, Il, Tév aad 7[é(s)] oro- 
Gls, TlevreAerxa, wélxos tadlalor és 5e6- 
v|rov rerrapop rodd|v, hidaols 6[t]705- 

10 aj, maxos tpiradaoTa, bér|rt Svolty 6Bo- 


Not|y dedcov [rp|vav héxac[rolv, Diulor|e 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 327 


Koumanoudes, ’A@jvaov, VII, 1878, pp. 483 ff. Choisy, Etudes, pp. 105 ff. I.G., I, 
Suppl. 321 (p. 75); I?, 373. J.—M., App. Ep., 27. Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new 
readings). Dinsmoor, J. : 

Facsimile, Phate XLVIII. 


Variant Readings. Col. I. L. 20 1A Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. !=' Washburn. L. 21 FEF 
Washburn. L. 22 XAP Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. «AN Washburn. L. 27 TAYT Koumanoudes, 
Kirchhoff. TAY Washburn. L. 29 \T!| Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. \T°.1P/ Washburn. L. 31 
padaBov Koumanoudes. L. 321E.T; cavyl Koumanoudes. E.TIA‘'C Washburn. L. 33 a; v xatrack 
Koumanoudes. L. 34 ra(ir)a ravra E; Koumanoudes. L. 35 cav7 xa(i .) o. »v Koumanoudes. 
NTIKAI Kirchhoff. NTIKAI.= Washburn. L. 37 vi!HFA Koumanoudes. L. 38 [EMMI Washburn. 
L. 41 revre Koumanoudes. TEANTA Kirchhoff. L. 42 ay(a)\ov Koumanoudes. L. 447... 0 Tes 
Koumanoudes. L. 46 éri@ Koumanoudes. L. 47 (xo); esa Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 48 ecedd 
Koumanoudes. 

Col. II. L. 16 AY under NI Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 17 [PO Kirchhoff. [.0= Washburn. 
L. 20 cav(7e r)a Koumanoudes. L. 21 (E)iawv Koumanoudes. L. 23 T.Al..Al= Washburn. L. 
25 $O2ANTI Kirchhoff. L. 37 \(é)oav(7c) kac Koumanoudes. 

Col. Ill. L.3 T under = Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 5 XPEZEN Koumanoudes. L. 6 TOMTOAA 
Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 8 evos?.|. Koumanoudes. L. 12 XH Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 15 
TEN Koumanoudes, Kirchhoff. L. 20 Atk? Koumanoudes. L. 21 AAAAT I! Koumanoudes, 
Washburn. 


XII. Fragment of white marble, 0.145 m. high, 0.11 m. wide, broken on all sides and 
at the back. Acquired in Athens in 1912 by Dr. Kurt Miller, and presented by him to the 
National Museum. Here published for the first time, with the help of squeezes, a photo- 
graph, and a transcription of the text furnished by Dr. Miiller. 

Facsimile, Phares XLVIII. 


VIII a 


[- — — Stone-work. Payments for the setting in place and the 
dressing of the top surface of the blocks of Eleusinian stone 
against which the figures (are to be placed) and their 

1  backing-stones. On the south wall:] for placing blocks eight 
feet long, two feet high, at 5 drachmae a tetrapody, to Simon 
living in Agryle, 3 blocks, 30 drachmae. For placing blocks 
six feet long, two feet high, one foot thick, to Simon 

5 living in Agryle, 5 blocks, 37 drachmae, 3 obols. For 
placing a block two feet high, one foot thick, two feet 
long, to Simon living in Agryle, 1 block, 2 drachmae, 
3 obols. For placing backing-stones for these, 2 blocks of Pentelic 
marble, from the stoa, three feet and three-quarters long, 

10 two feet high, three-quarters of a foot thick, at two 
drachmae, four obols a block, to Simon living in Agryle, 


328 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


"Alypunr. oft: ]IECl [Eh ]érepa avr[vbé]uara [wera- 
xav] rav xobdlov, 76 Aliywvailo di]O0, 76[y aa- 

6 Tels orloals, uléxlos rerpa[m]oda, ral ro- 

s dt]rod[a, rlaxol]s tpreumodca, Oéyte 6- 

Bod]é Sedc0[v] t[p]tdv Exaor[ov], Diworr ’A- 
ypuJd. ot. PIE AALEFIIE érelpyaloapévor 7- 
ad|ra rerpar|o]di[a]s Allll, rerapto éu- 
dpal|xpuo rev [re|Tpamodiay hexaorer, 

— =lkpot éy Ko[-] ot., AAAATFEEF. *Et réu 


mpos| 0 Tolyou Tou pos 76 Bows: peéxols ex- 


 robja, h[b|daos dirlod]a, [r]axos rodcalilo[y, 


Oév|re Dupiar ’Adol[ze. of. SEP ]EFI[I]. av7[bép- 
ara] ro[b|rou, rév [a|r[o] ré[s o]rol[as], wélKos 7- 
erpam|oda, [r]Aar[os| diroda, raxos Tpli- 
mradalora, Oévre, [De]uiart ’A[A]oze. ot. :113[PF €- 
me|pyao|a]uévor tadra, [re|Tparodi| ay 

ulaly kai éulclov, Deular [’A]Aoze. of. 2 Pit. [Eat 
réu| mpos Bopé[o] roi[xo- péx]o[s] dxrd7o0[ba- 

s, hlbdoos Sizod[as], alos mlodvaiols, Oé- 

yr|t, Paddxpor [Taclave?, N[IZAJALAA. avr 
ulara tlolirous, I]1, Ievre[Aerxa, Tov amo T- 

és oToas, mexos| TeTp[amoda, hidaos 

dizod|a, wax|[os|rpura[Aaora, Bévre TpL6- 

v éxao|rov, PalA|axpou H[avaviet 211: +? hérep- 
a avr |éuarla] pelralyo[v tov xabXov, 76 
Atywalio \t0o, ré|v] amo res [oTods, wexos 
TeTpaTroba, TAGATOS Simo]éa, |waxos TpLE- 
purod.a, Oévrt, OB0AG Seda lov rpl|Lov dpax- 

Lloly hé|xac[rov, Padax|plol|e Tara[veet:l 111 
AAFFIJIN: érepylacaplévor radra, tlerpar- 
odtas| AIIII? Paddxpor Malar |e? cali cvve- 

pyo. ?:AJAAAPEFEF. Ent rét rotx[ou Tou mpos 


[76 Ilavdpooeio — — — —- - - - —- —- — — — — = | 


IX 


i me pe oe er |s azA[aros 
DSS) latte Cae ee eae aie, ee | wexos 

Ae OAS a oe a we | maxos 1r06- 
wu —- -—-—--—--—-—--—-— hex|aoro 76 \iBo 


-----+------- | FEFFY Bardax- 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 329 


2 blocks, 5 drachmae, 2 obols. For placing other backing- 
stones between the wooden beams, of Aeginetan stone, 
from the stoa, four feet long, two feet 

wide, one foot and a half thick, at two 

drachmae, five obols a block, to Simon 

living in Agryle, 8 blocks, 22 drachmae, 

4 obols. For dressing the top surface of these, 

14 tetrapodies, at three drachmae and a half a 

tetrapody, to — — kros living in Ko — — , 49 drachmae. 
On the east wall, that towards the altar: 

For placing a block six feet long, two feet high, 

one foot thick, to Simias living in Alopeke, 1 block, 

7 drachmae, 3 obols. For placing backing-stones for this, 
from the stoa, four feet long, two feet wide, 

three quarters of a foot thick, to Simias living in Alopeke, 
2 blocks, 6 drachmae. For dressing the top surface 

of these, one tetrapody and a half, to Simias living in 
Alopeke, 7 drachmae. On the north wall: For placing blocks 
eight feet long, two feet high, one foot thick, 

to Phalakros of Paiania, 4 blocks, 40 drachmae. 

For placing backing-stones for these, 2 blocks of Pentelic marble, 
from the stoa, four feet long, two feet high, 

three quarters of a foot thick, at three drachmae each, 

to Phalakros of Paiania, 2 blocks, 6 drachmae. 

For placing other backing-stones between the wooden beams, 
of Aeginetan stone, from the stoa, four feet 

long, two feet wide, one foot and a half 

thick, at two drachmae, five obols each, 

to Phalakros of Paiania, 8 blocks, 22 drachmae 

4 obols. For dressing the top surface of these, 

14 tetrapodies, to Phalakros of Paiania’and his 

assistant, 49 drachmae. On the wall towards 

AACE Seek Ta DNS 72) VC Ege ge ae al ted Cet lore a i 


Dae! Woe rab eagle, pt Paeenires | anayon 2 ae length 
ee eee se Se eS hee thickness one 


foot --------- of each stone 
2 Se eg ee ae ae 4 drachmae. To Phalakros 


330 


10 


15 


20 


25 


20 


30 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


pot Ilaavet, — — Oéceo|s apyuplilo kal éx- 
epyactas Kepadarov] HHHAAAAT EE I]I At- 
ov apiuos EAT IIL] avrib[éulara 
Tlevredecka 2P 1? Ailywatla — — — | Il. 
Musbéuara. ampiolras kab’ é[uélpav ép- 
vyatouevos, av|dpo[t|y dvotv, [he]karép- 

or Spaxpes, he|uepav : Alli, Pavdiout éy K- 
oN! olf Kal cuvep|yoluls SAAFFEE? xatAa dta- 
mpioavrt, puluos dxTorodas :AIIII?, To- 

yas FAAAIIII:, dvoty d6Bodoty rely] rolulev 
hexaore|vi Padior éy Koddur. oi., AAT 
HF? apiore|e Starpioavre xobAov MeéKo- 

s TeTpa|KaveiKoo TOdGY, Touasil:, rely 
Topelv hexaarev ?+? Paudion ? é€y Kodd : of., T. €- 
s TO|s 6xETOs TplaayTt xavAOV? Patdio- 

u| éy Koddv of iF. =réxroow Kad’ éuépav 
éxerov éxroecavre Kai hurobevtt, he- 

pepov :P III? Kpotoor BudoKN€os PEE EF: K- 
avovas dvaxoéoartt kal épyalt lou- 

évo. kat’ éuepav, heuepov ?A: Té[pur 2A: 
kad’ éuépav Kavova dtappu[Ouioavte 

dvoty hewépaw Muxiove [fk F? uroboparov 4- 
pyupio ke|padavoy :FA[APFFFEEI] — — — — 


Arco? 

> \ an t oO A 
— ee éml TOL TOLXoL T|GL Tpds T- 
6 Ilavdpoceio: peéxos terparo|ba, maTO- 

tA 4 t Ld 

s Tpiroba, maxos TevTeTaalora, OérT- 
Ll, TOV amo Tes oTOGS, ’Apervidad ler? éy Kol. ioi., 
PIE-? wexos wevtérov, tAGTO|s Tpiror, 
TaxXos TevTeTadacTor, Oév|ri, ’“Apei- 
adertéy Kol. ot. ili-? hérepa, yolviata, rév 
> X a Lal a La ig 
amo Tés oToas, weKos héxrov,| tAdTOs Te- 
TapTo hewurodio, taxos Tevte|TaNacT- 
ov, éxmoveoavre, “Apewiadle i éy Kot. ot., 
li-? pexos herra wodév klat éuur- 
odlo, mAaTOS TpLOv Oddy Kal éuL|708Lo, 
TaXOS TEVTETANATTOY, ExTrolecay|r[t, 


[’Ameiddetéy Kol. of. :/?-? — — — —] 


10 


15 


20 


25 


25 


30 


THE INSCRIPTIONS ool 


of Paiania — — Total expenditures for placing the blocks 
and dressing their top surfaces, 347 drachmae, 2 obols. 
Number of blocks, 18. Pentelic 

backing-stones, 6. Aeginetan backing-stones, —. 
Wages. To sawyers working by the day, 

to two men, each receiving a drachma 

a day, 12 days, to Rhadios living in 

Kollytos and his assistants, 24 drachmae. 

For sawing 14 eight-foot timbers, 84 

cuts, at two obols a cut, 

to Rhadios living in Kollytos, 28 

drachmae. To a sawyer for sawing a timber 
twenty-four feet long, 5 cuts, at 1 drachma 

a cut, to Rhadios living in Kollytos, 5 drachmae. 

For sawing a timber for the struts (?), to Rhadios 
living in Kollytos, 1 drachma, 2 obols. To carpenters 
working by the day, for making a strut (?) and 
placing it under, 9 days, to Kroisos, son of Philokles, 
9 drachmae. For making and trimming straight-edges, 
work by the day, 10 days, to Gerys, 10 drachmae. 

For truing up a straight-edge, work by the day, 

two days, to Mikion, 2 drachmae. Total expenditures 
for wages, 79 drachmae, 2 obols. - — —- —- — — - - 


X, col. 1 


—------ On the wall towards the 

Pandroseum. For placing (cornice blocks) four feet 
long, three feet wide, one foot and a quarter thick, 

from the stoa, to Ameiniades living in Koile, 

6 blocks, — drachmae. For placing a block five feet 
long, three feet wide, one foot and a quarter thick, to 
Ameiniades living in Koile, 1 block, — drachmae. Others, 
for the angles, from the stoa; for shaping a block six feet 
long, three feet and a half wide, one foot and a quarter 
thick, to Ameiniades, living in Koile, 

1 block, — drachmae. For shaping a block seven 

feet and a half long, three feet and a half wide, 

one foot and a quarter thick, to Ameiniades 

living in Koile, 1 block, — drachmae. — — — — - — - 


332 THE ERECHTHEUM 


X, col. 11 


= —— — | rpvravelvoces — = — = — — = 
N€uparla rapa tapultov res O66 — — — 

5 ——— ] kal xovvapxlovrov — — — — — 
— — ] xepadatov Aeuplaroy — — — — — 
— — — | dvaddouara épylalolias. aierra- 
Tor] éxt rou pds &o [aier]ov- [kopudaio 
kal] avribéuartlols, uéxlo|s év[re 70d- 

10 lv, rAdros rpu[év rlodé[v] Kal he|pr7rodi- 
ol, waxos rodvato|y, 74] EAd[or]z[o] Epyo, ’A[xot- 
olmelOe éu MeAlire|e oi[x.], évds kal a[p- 
|Wéuaros :AA [r]év mp[d]s rou Kopulpa- 
tlou kal avTWeuaroly], welxlos érramd6- 

15 oly, tAdros Tpir[ddlov, raxos Todtaiov, T- 
6 €d\XoiTS Epyo, “Axavo7reiBea éu MeXdire o- 
ik.: evos Kal avTiéuatos ?AT? Pavoxde- 

t éy Koide oik., hevos ATF. Keduooddpor 
€ DkapBovt. oix., [av|riewaros Tovror 

20 AE Kepxtdvatou lai] avTieuarov péKo- 

s TevTeTOdoY, T[|AG|TOs TpLEeuLTOdiLoP, 

maxos Todtato|y, Avjotar ’AXKirro Keduc., 
hevos xai dvri[Oéularos :A? Evdixo ’Ay[p- 
vAé. olk., hevds x[at dlyTibéuaros :TEEF. 

25 NtOov apiOyos : [T: av|riéuara :P: épyac- 
Las T6 mpos €0 alierd], dpyupio Kep[a|Aavov 
FAATEE-FE? ért ro[u mplos 76 Iavdpoceio 
aierov: Kopudatlov uléxos Kat mAaTos 
TeTpaTroda, malxos T|preus|70d|tov, éxz- 

30  o€oavtt, ’Apue[vidde|e ey Koide iotxo., he 
vos :AAAA: 76 bald T]ét kopvdato(t) Kal a- 
v0 |éuaros ulexos| érramddov, tAdT- 
os T|pirddov, r[a]xo[s] arod.atov, éxzovéo- 
avte. . A eluayablo. Xolumeracé : &vos ka- 

35 1 dvribéularols] A[.]. Kepxidvato kal av- 
7 |6[éuaros| wexols] wevrémrodos, 7AG- 


Tos Tp[veuirro|d[i]o, r[a]xos wodtalo, éxrro- 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


cae COLs 11 


— —— — the same - - - - - - - 

— — — holding the prytany — - 

Receipts from the treasurers of the goddess — — - 

— — — — and his colleagues — - - -— - 

— —-— — total receipts - - - - - - 

— — — — Expenditures for work. Pediment 

blocks for the east gable: for the remaining 

work on the central block and its backer, 

five feet long, three feet and a half wide, 

one foot thick, to Axiopeithes living in 

Melite, one block and its backer, 20 

drachmae. For the remaining work on the 

blocks next to the central block and their backers, seven 
feet long, three feet wide, one foot thick, 

to Axiopeithes living in Melite, for one block 

and its backer, 15 drachmae; to Phanokles living 

in Koile, for one block, 16 drachmae; to 
Kephisodoros living in Skambonidai for the backer 
for this block, 10 drachmae. For the two wedge-shaped blocks 
and their backers, five feet long, one foot and a half 
wide, one foot thick, to Lysias, son of Alkippos, of 
Kephisia, for one block and its backer, 10 drachmae. 
To Eudikos living in Agryle, for one block and its 
backer, 8 drachmae. Number of blocks, 5. Backers, 5. 
Total expenditures for work on the east gable, 

79 drachmae. On the gable towards the Pandroseum: 
for shaping the central block, four feet long 

and wide, one foot and a half thick, 

to Ameiniades living in Koile, one block, 

40 drachmae. For shaping the block next to 

the central block and its backer, seven feet long, 
three feet wide, one foot thick, 

to Demagathos of Xypete, for one block 

and its backer, 20 (?) drachmae. For shaping 

a wedge-shaped block and its backer, five feet 

long, one foot and a half wide, one foot 


333 


334 THE ERECHTHEUM 


tlécay[re Avoavilale ély Kvéabe.? oix.? hev- 

os] kai avri[Béularlo]s IP FEE? AtBov apr- par On) 
40 Opodls III, dv[rOé]ualra :I]I? épyacias 76 

apos| 76 Ia[vdpoceio aileré, apyluplio x- 

e@adauoy IFA — = > =| xara | = 

a eta 7 les Du Opes: => ie 


ie ented trains ek )ovatm (>i i ee 


96 Thin ae ee 


30° (CGP ==0X = = — tas — = 
evo| — — a|roxotve[av7e — — — — 
—-—-—-—-— kali ra xad[bupara éxroéo- 
a[y]7[t — — jrar[o] ravra rav[ — — — —- 
tlo]s odexioxos Sthap[udcavte — — K- 
35 vpulario ém[u]xohréoav7[t] cal [aroxotoa- 
ve hexatepov révte [Spaxpov :A? — — 
es Mavis éxoeroieole — — — dpyup- 
to Kepadaroy :HAAF'| — — — — — — Xo- 
umeravov épyatelro | +Yere 
40 tat Apopovols — — — — — 
— anoxaltoavrs — — — — — —_ 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 3090 


thick, to Lysanias living in Kydathenaion, 

for one block and its backer, 8 drachmae. Number 
40 of blocks, 3. Backers, 2. Total expenditures 

for work on the gable towards the Pandroseum, 

60 (?) drachmae. — — - - - --------- 


X, col. m1 


—-=--+---- for smoothing — — — — 
—------ and making the coffer-lids 
ae EST cae et all the — - —- - - - 
for fitting the ‘‘rafters’’ — — -— -— —- 

35 for gluing on the two cymatia and smoothing 
them, at five drachmae each, 10 drachmae. — — 
Manis made — — —- - --------- 
Sum total 122 (?) drachmae — - — 
of Xypete made 

40 to -—ias, son of Dromon — — —- —- - - 
for smoothing - —- - - -------- 


336 THE ERECHTHEUM 


BO oH ere ee a lee ee ak ral oe: 
inal GN oe OO ae 
—------ ] rat[rev Necdvavte 
—~—-—— xa a|rox[ctcavTt — — — 
—-—---- hex]aré[po]u — — — 

30 —-—-— kal Tov alorpal[yalAlov ém- 
youdocavTt ra|padaBelvre teTop- 


veunevov — — — Olemtu’A . 1. tb --— — 


—-—----- |] ralirla way7[a . 

385 —— — — ékrov€lo[alyre xali x]o[v]p- 
ouanrioavTe . . . E|iOvdopuos [é] Le. oi., 
—----- apyupto Klepadaltoly :HF 
—------ 7-H |v éu M[eX. olix., éoy- 
acvero kAtwakida wliav. tad[re|y Ne- 

40 avavt. — — — — xlalt] droxcbcarrt 
Kal — — — — — ] alé]vre dvra éxzro- 
végavTl, Kal Tov adoTp|ayaXov mpocyo- 
udocavTt tapadaPor|r[c] teropvevp- 
évov t--? — — — épyalélerlo rés ceni- 

45 d0s —--—--—---—---—-— |ko . paoo 
TS Se ee re eter é|ribévre 


—-----------—-+ Je Ae[e]a- 


vovTt — ~~ —- = —-—--—— leoer 


----- ep — — — — [rév aAatcio- 
15 v rév Tler[payovoly, rlévre (2) dvrov rds 

dvuxas éyKoANeo lavr[e kal éxocopad- 

toavte mplos toy Klalvdv[a Tor ALOtvo- 


v héxaor lov rpidv [Splaxpo[y ?-—? rop 


20 


25 


30 


40 


45 


15 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


XI, col. 1 


——--- for smoothing this 
=-——-=-- and for polishing — — 
a a each — — — 

for making and dowelling on 

the astragalus, having received it 


turned in the lathe — — for setting in place, to A- 


+ Er all these — — — — 
Be es for making and smoothing 


CS Euthydomos living in Semachidai 


—----- sum total 150 (+) drachmae. 
—------ living in Melite made 

one ladder. For smoothing this 
—--------- and polishing 

and fashioning the — — five in number 
and dowelling on the astragalus, 

having received it turned in the lathe 

— — — made of the beam — — - — 
—---------- for setting in place 
—------------ smoothing 


Oe ipl a ce ea For gluing in 
the moulding of the square frames, 

five in number (?), and truing them up, 
tested by the stone straight-edge, 


at three drachmae each frame, 15 drachmae (?). 


337 


338 THE ERECHTHEUM 


aotpayladoy ér[t]youddcarz[t] é[zi 7r- 
20 e& Krtplax[ida rlapadaPorre teTop|y- 
evpevov i-—: Evauvérou ’ANozexebev 
és rabrev Télv ceAlOa KAtpakioa é- 
kmroveoavTe Klat [a|Aavolo pxpo dbo Té- 
yp rvxot|vlov] AAA? tov doTpayador 
25 émiyoudlocavtt tapadaPorte TEeTOopy- 
evevov élmt tla]irev rev x[A]iuaxtda 
?--! rabvrer| e[p|yatero Deddds kal P- 
avoorparto|s [klat Evaiveros. apyupio 
Kepadatoy ? H]|PFAAATEEFFF? 
30 — — éu MelAL. : olk.? épyagvero TE. Ec 
— — — talites 76 tvxaW0 [Al atot- 
0, dvo dvre, &lvaxoéoarTe Kal Ko\réo- 
avr, éxarlepov éxs dpaxpylé]y !AF FE 70- 
vy [aorpayan lov émvyoudd|olavre rapa- 
35 AlaBlolyre re]ropvevpéevov, AAAT EEE KkA- 
uaxtoo|i dvoty Tos dvuxas éyKOA- 
Aléloar[re xlat éxcowadioavre mpos TOY 
k[alvov[a 7o]v ALO[wv lov, hexarépas déxa 
dplaxulav :A]A: rév tAauclov Tév TeTpa- 
40  ‘yolvov, [rer|rapov dvTov, Tos dvuxas é- 
y|xodrXeloalyre kal éxcouadioarre mp- 
ds| Toy [kavolva TOA ALOLVOY, héxacrov 
tp lov 6[pax|uav ZAK EE 7a Kupartia Ta 
pulkpa, [déx]a dvra, KoNdA€oarte Kal dv- 
45 ax|o€loav|re rpds Toy Kavova TON NLOL- 
volv, h[ékac]rov tpiév dpaxuov :AAA: 7- 
ov] ao[rpay]adov érvyoudédcarr[t rap- 
ara|o[vri] reropvevpévo[y ?-— —? — — — 


= Oa ee eae ei ea eC 


—------ HH hlérepa — — — — — 
I ee ay Jov| — — ]pever — —- — — — 
—-—-—— | rAaolilor rou r6[6]a exaor- — — 


ov mevre bpax]|udv, Ocoddror [’Ax]apveti é&- 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


45 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


For dowelling the astragalus upon the ladder, 

having received it turned in the lathe, — — drachmae. 
To Euainetos of Alopeke, 

for making a ladder for this section 

and two of the small box-wood frames, 30 drachmae. 
For dowelling the astragalus 

upon this ladder, having received it 

turned in the lathe, — — drachmae. 

This section was made by Selidous 

and Phanostratos and Euainetos. 

Sum total, 189 drachmae. 

— — — living in Melite made — —- — 

For smoothing the two box-wood frames of this, 

and gluing them, 

at six drachmae each, 12 drachmae. 

For dowelling on the astragalus, having 

received it turned in the lathe, 37 drachmae. 

For gluing in the mouldings of two ladders, 

and truing them up, tested by the stone straight-edge, 
at ten drachmae each, 20 drachmae. 

For gluing in the mouldings 

of the square frames, four in number, 

and for truing them up, 

tested by the stone straight-edge, 

at three drachmae each, 12 drachmae. 

For gluing in the small cymatia, ten in number 

and smoothing them, tested by the stone straight-edge, 
at three drachmae each, 30 drachmae. 

For dowelling on the astragalus, 

having received it turned in the lathe, — — 


XI, col. 11 


— — — — to the frame, at five drachmae each foot, 
to Theodotos of Acharnai, for one frame, 20 drachmae 


339 


340 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


45 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


vos :AA: Kpot|ao(v)? Budoxdéos, évds 7[AA? 
—----- H]epaxdeldo : helvds] :AA:? ’A .. 
—---- 7-H Ja oix.t hevds, AA? apiOyods 
mAavotoy : IlI]l? KaTaTomes TOM pLKpo- 

Tépov TAaL|ciov apyuplo Kepadauov } 
—------ ] kararopes 76m TOULC- 

tov xovp|rav apyupio Kepadaov, XH 
—---- 7-H ] xavAopyots és rely 
éropodialy hiwavras atoxoécaou 

meéxlos herraradaotos, TAGTOS Jex- 
aba|xrvXos, t[prd|y hewroBedtov? héxa- 

otlov SAAAAT: K[é6]uov éu Me.? ot., HRAAA, 
ATEE? Tipowaxor ? "Axapr[et ?] PATII, AFI! 
IC? TAeotae Kerrion SAAA[AIPII AAP Mex- 
tove téu Me.? otk. PAAAIIIIE EL EI]C. Ev@védu0- 
tu Merit. IP III? és rev Exopodiay hiwavr- 

ov €pyacias apyupio Kepadaoy ;PAA 

AATEE: réxroot probopara Kai Kaé- 

euepiota. Kepaudocarte hurép Tes 0- 

podes Eri 76 ved, Krégom Aaxidder, 

AAFEEE! 70(s) ogexioxos Oéou Kal Tos i- 
pavras Kad’ éuépav, Tépu, hewép- 

ov 3 IET EE Mexiom, heuépov Illi EEF? K- 
poico, heuepov 20:0! duadapxyoar- 

TLTQ peTaKiovia, TéTTAPA OVTA, TA 

mpos 76 Ilavépoceio, Koyorr éu Me. oi., 
AAAA? rouddd\vyas Topveboarte és 

Ta KaAvpaTa, Mixiov éy KoddXv.: ot.? KEEL. 
Tpltorer és TA KaAUMaTA SLtaTpica- 

vtt odexioxov, Patdior éy Koddv.? ot.? P. 

TO TELXLOV évoLKOdopMécavTL TG Epy- 

agtepio émede har cedides Exoex- 

Beoav, Mexiou éu MeNirec? of.2 PILE Té 

KToot MigbouaTov apyupio Kepadat- 

ov :PAAAAFIIII: Tpadge? xad- 

Uuwata ypadoarre ? Allll ? émt rév dp- 

oper, emi Tas aedldas Tas Urép [76 

ayadwaros tH EFE? dpax[usv héxac- 

tlov 76 KaAUpa, — — — ?PP RE — — 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


40 


45 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 341 


To Kroisos, son of Philokles, for one frame, 20 drachmae. 

To — — -, son of Herakleides, for one frame, 20 drachmae. 
To A — -, living in — — — , for one frame, 20 drachmae. 
Number of frames, 4. 

Sum total for the carving 

of the smaller frames, — — — drachmae. 

Sum total for the carving 

of all the frames, 1100 (+) drachmae. 

To carpenters for planing cross-pieces 

for the roof, seven palms long, 

ten dactyls wide, at one obol and a half each, 

45 drachmae to Komon living in Melite, for 180 cross-pieces; 
17 drachmae to Timomachos of Acharnai, for 68 cross-pieces; 
11 drachmae, 43 obols to Tlesias of Kettos, for 47 cross-pieces; 
21 drachmae to Mikion living in Melite, for 84 cross-pieces; 
2 drachmae, 14 obols to Euthydomos of Melite, for 9 cross-pieces. 
Sum total for work on the cross-pieces for the roof, 97 drachmae. 
Payments to artisans for piece-work and day labor. 

For laying tiles above the ceiling upon the temple, 

to Kteson of Lakiadai, 24 drachmae. 

For laying the rafters and the cross-pieces, by day labor, 

to Gerys, for 6 days’ work, 6 drachmae; 

to Mikion, for 3 days’ work, 3 drachmae; 

to Kroisos, for 5 days’ work, 5 drachmae. 

For placing grilles in the intercolumniations, 

four in number, towards the Pandroseum, 

to Komon, living in Melite, 40 drachmae. 

For turning bosses for the coffer-lids, 

to Mikion, living in Kollytos, 3 drachmae, 1 obol. 

To a sawyer, for sawing up a rafter into coffer-lids, 

to Rhadios, living in Kollytos, 5 drachmae. 

For building up the wall of the workshop 

after the beams had been carried out, 

to Mikion, living in Melite, 5 drachmae, 3 obols. 

Sum total of payments to artisans, 91 drachmae, 4 obols. 

To a painter, for painting 14 coffer-lids 

upon the ceiling, upon the beams above the image, 

at 4 drachmae each coffer-lid, 

to ---- = 56 drachmae. 


342 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Vill s 


In view of the scanty remains no minuscule text or translation is attempted. The fol- 
lowing restorations are suggested by Washburn. 

Line 4. [re]rpava[y.]. Cf. VII, 1. 8. The word is also perhaps to be restored in line 2: 
[rerp]avalyre]. 

Line 5. [5paxp]év [hexarlepov ?0 Il. 

Line 6. K\éov. A stone-cutter of this name occurs in the account of 408/7 B.c., 
XVII, col. 1, 1. 51. 

Line 7. [épyaclials] xeplararor]. 


XII 
—~—--—------------ Jos 77? apo 
—~------------ |oovevot p= Lo 
—----------- |re €uepov eix- ca 
5. o0- -- = = eH = ] éu€pas exdor- 7 
—gs—-—----+-—-- | ki mplorats kal tT- = 
éxtoot (2) a&pyupio kebar|aolyi] FE v6 
a re tTlas cé\ibas he 
—-—-------- teT|Tapov OBdXov TO- ot 
10 pmoda (?) ----- |ros 76 doTpaya- og 
COMMENTARY 


VIII a, IX, Il. 1-9. Work on the Frieze. Inscription VIII a contains a part of the 
account of sums paid in one prytany for stone-work. ‘This consists in the setting in place 
(6éo1s) and the dressing of the top surface (érepyacia) of certain blocks on the four walls 
of the building. Lines 21—28 describe the work done on the east front (émt rét mpds €0 Totxor 
Téu Tpds 76 Bos), lines 28-43 that on the north wall (émi rét rpds Bopéo roixor). The heading 
to be supplied above lines 1-20 is ‘“‘ upon the south wall ”’ (émt 7éu mpds vé70 rotxou), as is 
evident from the similarity of the items to those of the north wall. The heading in line 43 
must then be restored émi 76 roix[ou Téu tpds 76 Havdpoceio], which is the regular designation 
of the west wall (cf. II, col. 1, 1. 44, and p. 308, note 1). The inscription ends here; but 
there are several indications that part of the account of work on the west wall is preserved 
in lines 1-9 of inscription IX. These are, as Michaelis observed (Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, 
p. 359), the mention of the dimension, ‘‘one foot” (1.3), of backing-stones (1. 8), and of the 
mason Phalakros (1. 5). Lolling (AeAriov ’Apx., 1888, p. 87) and Frickenhaus (A.J.A., X, 
1906, p. 12) added another piece of evidence by reading [Ai]yaio in line 9. Frickenhaus 
was wrong, however, in making IX the continuation of X, column 1, and consequently failed 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 343 


Line 11. 76 Bo[us]. This may be the altar of the Thyechoiis, in the North Portico, II, 
col. u, 1. 95; XVII, col. 1, 1. 62; or the altar of Dione, X, col. 1, 1. 43; XIV, col. 1, lL. 8; 
XVII, col. 1, ll. 37, 65; col. m, Il. 49, 64; or it may be a part of the designation of the east 
front, which is elsewhere described as “towards the altar,” VIII, 1. 21; XVII, col. 1, ll. 36, 
65; col. 1, 1. 48. 

Line 39. 0s. The inscriptions contain three names beginning with these letters: 
Zooavdpos, XIV, col. 1, 1.7; XVII, col. 1, ll. 47, 84; col. 1, 1. 62; Dooias, XIII, col. 1, 1. 2; 
Léorparos, XVII, col. 1, 1. 40. Sosandros was, like Kleon, a stone-cutter. 


OEE CMa omen twenty days 
Fi a each day 
TAG ee aa, ee 1 dr. To sawyers and 
carpenters (?) sum total: 51 dr. 
El BS peat 8 SAR aes the ceiling beams 
ol Sage RAS ae Ors four obols the 
10 foot ----------- of the astragalus 


to see the significance of lines 7—9 of IX, which contain a summary of the stone-work done 
during the prytany. To the evidence from the contents is to be added the similarity of the 
left edges of the two fragments: both were surfaces of contact, with corresponding ana- 
thyrosis. 

The blocks listed are of two kinds: (1) a series of blocks which are not given a name, 
but two of whose dimensions (height, 2 ft.; thickness, 1 ft.) are the same throughout; 
(2) blocks described as dvriOéuara robros, — “ backing-stones,’’ varying in dimensions 
and material (Pentelic marble, ll. 8, 32; Aeginetan limestone, Il. 13, 37).1 

The position of these blocks was first correctly determined by Choisy (tudes, p. 100). 
"Tos invariably means height; and there were only two courses of the building which had 


1 That the dvriéuara are not to be thought of as forming the face of a wall, ‘‘ Verkleidungssteine,”’ as Schoene 
understood the word (Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 44), is clear from the fact that they were in part of an inferior material, 
and therefore not intended to be visible. And the other occurrences of the word in inscriptions support the interpre- 
tation accepted above. So in X, col. u, 1. 9 xopudaio cal dvrWenaros (cf. also ll. 14, 19, 20, 25, 32, 35, 36) the 
“backers” of the pediment blocks are meant. In an inscription from Troezen (J.G., IV, 823, 1. 69) the avridéuara ra 
repipavel kal T& mparg ——~—, were clearly not meant to beseen. And in an inscription relating to the temple at Didyma 
(Haussoullier, Btudes sur Vhistoire de Milet, p. 162) & re xocwodédpos kat 76 dv7iWeua means the frieze and its backing. 
Cf. also J.G., II, 8345, 1. 21, ioe &povpator dvrirWéwevor. The wall at Eleusis, here referred to, is still standing, and 
shows an outer face of poros, an inner of conglomerate (dpoupatos \i6os). 

The spelling of the word is uncertain. In classical Greek a long penult would be expected, as in avé6nua, érlOnua. 
Cf. Kiihner-Blass, I, 2, p. 286, § 331, 2, and I, 1, p. 307, § 75, 5. The epigraphical evidence favors the spelling ayriGeua. 


344. THE ERECHTHEUM 


the height required — the epistyle and the frieze. The former is to be excluded, since the 
blocks composing it were, except for those over the columns, regularly eight feet long and 
two feet and a quarter thick (cf. II, col. 1, 1. 36). The passage therefore records the lay- 
ing of the frieze blocks of Eleusinian stone. ‘These blocks are also listed in the report as 
two feet high and one foot thick (II, col. u, ll. 11ff.). The designation and material of 
the blocks were doubtless given once for all at the top of the account somewhat as follows: 
Aopyks: Oéceos kal érepyactas 76 "EXevowraké diOo mpos hér ra F6va Kal avTifeuaror. 

The first of the two operations for which the payments are made, the @éors (6ér71, ll. 5, 
10, etc.), means here more than the mere hoisting and setting in place of the stones. It in- 
cludes any final chiselling that might be found necessary after the block had been hoisted, 
to secure perfect jointing. The workmen employed were skilled stonecutters, as appears 
from the fact that we find them later carving the channels on the columns of the East 
Portico. (Simon, XVII, col. 1, 1. 51; Simias, cbid., col. 1, ll. 42, 78, col. m, I. 60; XIV; 
col. 1, 1. 2; Phalakros, XVII, col. 1, 1. 70, col. m1, 1. 53.) The work includes further the 
cutting of the holes for the clamps and dowels, the insertion of these, and the fastening of 
them by means of molten lead. In an inscription from Eleusis, /.G., Il, 5, 10546, Il. 38 ff., 
the details are described more fully : — [ver]éma ée[pyacacOar — — | kal dpali kal] kabappocat 
——— kal d[foa| kai youdd[oat kal worvBdov Teprxéar kal érepy|acal[cbar]. 

The second operation, the érepyacia (érepyacapeévon, ll. 17, 27, 41) takes place after all 
the blocks have been laid, and the payments are made on the basis of units of four feet. 
The preposition ézi shows that it was the top surface which received this dressing. The 
operation is therefore to be distinguished from the final chiselling of the visible faces of the 
walls, which was called by a different name (see the note on axatagéeoros, p. 309). As Schoene 
saw (Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 38), the object of the érepyacia was to secure a perfectly level and 
even bed for the next course to be laid.1 

Before attempting to ascertain the position on the building of the various blocks listed, 
it is necessary to discuss some textual difficulties, due chiefly to the bad preservation of the 
stone, and to justify the adoption of readings differing from those of the previous editors. 


1 The operation is repeatedly referred to in building inscriptions. So in J.G., II, 5, 1054b, 1. 43 (the passage quoted 
above); ibid., 1. 60; 1054c, 1. 14; ibid., 1. 59 [érepy]éatecOar 5¢ kara Tov orotxov éxacrov dcavexq; 1054d, 1. 10 (the same 
formula); 1054¢, 1. 65, cal érepyaclapevov ebrevets t]pds rhv wepitéevecay iv dv dQ 6 apxuTéexTwr, Shoat Kal wddvBSov Teprxéat. 
"Excxorn (érixérrew, mpoerxorrev) is used in the same sense. So of the dressing of the top of a foundation, Ath. Mitt., 
XXXI, 1906, p. 184, 1. 6, Kat eruxdper dpOdr kara xeparyy, and of the dressing of the top of a line of stelae upon which 
a coping was to be placed, /.G., VI, 3073, ll. 67 ff., émOhoe 6¢ Kal eri rds orh\as Tas brapxobcas OpvyKods évdeKa, TpoeTt- 
xopas ras ormdas. Cf. also wbid., ll. 71, 145, 149. *Emtod seems to be used in the same sense at Epidauros, J.G., IV, 1484, 
L. 70, érvody rod orpa@paros Tod dur; 1485, 1.19, croBas écéoas. Both érepydtecGar and érixémrev are also used of a sur- 
face which was to remain exposed. So inscription II, col. 1, 1. 86, the roof of the Porch of the Maidens; J.G., II, 1054, 
1. 63, the pavement of the Arsenal of Philon, kai érepydcerar épOdv Kal duadés avodev; and I.G., VII, 3073, 1. 183, the 
pavement of the temple of Zeus at Lebadeia, émixoparw xara xepadqv. This last passage gives an idea of the details of 
the process. A long straight-edge (uaxpds xayev, 20 ft. long, as appears from 1. 135 and from an inscription from Delos, 
Hermes, XVII, 1882, p. 4, 1. 2) was used in connection with a level (s.a8qrns) to get a perfectly horizontal surface. 
The stones were tested for smaller unevennesses by the application of a straight-edge smeared with red lead (uiAros). 
Cf. on these processes Fabricius, De architectura graeca, pp. 66, 72, 88 and fig. 4, Lattermann, Klio, VI, p. 151, and 
Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, p. 102. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 345 


Line 1. The first item records work on three blocks of the south wall. From the fact 
that the price paid is reckoned in tetrapodies Frickenhaus (l.c., p. 6, note 1), following 
Schoene (Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 48), inferred that the work was not the @éo1s, but the érepyacia 
of blocks laid in an earlier prytany. He suggested that they belonged to the epistyle course, 
but restored the passage incorrectly, as has been shown in Ath. Mitt., XX XVI, 1911, p. 323. 
Accepting his suggestion I there proposed to identify the blocks with the three epistylia, 
eight feet long, which were noted in the report of 409 B.c. as lacking the dressing of their top 
surface (II, col. 1, 1. 836). I restored éxrézo06a in line 1, dvotv rodoty or diroda, rpia in line 2, and 
[héxrro|5a|s at the end of line 3, instead of the unintelligible numerals suggested by Fricken- 
haus. But in A.J.A., XVII, 1913, p. 252, Dinsmoor has pointed out some flaws in this 
solution. The rate of payment for ézepyacia of the frieze is not 3 dr. 3 ob. on the north and 
south walls and 4 dr. 4 ob. on the east wall, as I gave it, but 3 dr. 3 ob. on all three walls. 
According to Dinsmoor it applies only to the Eleusinian blocks which were one foot wide. 
The rate, 5 dr., therefore seems too low for the dressing of the epistyle which was two feet 
and a quarter wide. The restoration dvoty zodoty in line 2 instead of dizoéa is unsatisfactory, 
as is the alternative dioda, rpia, since the number is given again in the line below. Dins- 
moor has also noted that the rate, 5 dr. per tetrapody, is that paid for the @éa:s of the blocks 
of the frieze. He suggests, therefore, that the item records the laying of three frieze blocks 
eight feet long on the south wall, the rate per tetrapody being here given once for all, 
and restores éxré7oéas in line 1. Against this theory is the fact that there is no mention 
of backing-stones, as for all the other frieze blocks listed. His restoration is, however, 
accepted here as being the more probable one. 

Line 4. The second item has to do with the laying of frieze blocks, as is clear from the 
dimensions, height two feet, thickness one foot. The length can be calculated from the 
price paid. Five blocks cost 37 dr. 2 ob. One block, therefore, would cost 7 dr. 3 ob.1 This 
is the price paid for the @éos of a block six feet long on the east front (1. 21). The restora- 
tion héxzodas at the end of line 3 fits the traces on the stone satisfactorily. 

Line 6. The price paid is one-third of that paid for a six-foot block. We may therefore 
follow Frickenhaus in his ingenious correction of the text which is here manifestly confused. 

Line 7. Schoene read after av7iWéuara the letters ,OST...>+°¢. Washburn gives ~OST “ 
here, and ~< VOM in line 32 where the same formula occurs. On this basis Frickenhaus 
restored in both places évriOéuara 76 oroixo. But the third letter cannot be =. In both 
cases there are traces of Y. The correct reading is av7Jéuara robro.s, as in line 24. After 
this there is space for one or at most two letters. Presumably the number of blocks, 11, is 
to be restored here. 

rév ao Tés arods. On this phrase see the commentary on II, col. 1, |. 73, p. 317. 

Line 8. The material, Pentelic marble, is specified here and in line 32, because most 
of the av7éuara on the north and south walls were of a different material. 


1 The total was probably 37 dr. 3 ob., the figures || in 1. 5 being an error for III. 


346 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Line 12. The restoration peraxcd here and in line 36 is due to Washburn. Frickenhaus 
restored xavAlivorv]. This is to be corrected to xavA[ov] to make room for the article 76, 
traces of which are visible before Aiywaito in line 13. 


Line 14. zdAé[ros]. Schoene and Washburn read hi[¢aos|. But the letters [La are 
clear. The word is more naturally used of blocks which are approximately square in sec- 
tion, tyos being generally used in describing thin slabs set on end. The use of zAdz7os in line 
25 is also significant, as will appear below. 

Line 21. rou zpos 76 Bouse. The columns of the East Portico are described as rév xara 
Tov Boudv in XVII, col. 1, ll. 36, 64, rév rapa Tov Boyuor, rbid., col. u, 1. 48. The altar has 
generally been identified with the great altar of Athena, northeast of the Parthenon. 

éxroba. There is no room for the aspirate, which is also lacking in éxaovoy (1. 16, and 
probably 1. 35), éudpaxyo (1. 18), ewov (1. 28), as well as seven times in inscriptions [X- 
XII. In general this account shows care in the use of the aspirate, in contrast to the 
account of the following year. 

Line 27. [re|rpazodilay pialy kai éultlov. Washburn read ONKAI at the beginning of line 
28. On the basis of this Frickenhaus restored [re]tpazodia[s Il, tpulév Kat é[uscjov, to which 
the following objections may be urged: (1) There is not room at the end of line 27 for the 
numeral ||, nor for four letters before N in line 28. (2) We should expect éuiceos, not éuov. 
(3) We should expect after guuov (€uiceos) the words rév rerparodiay éxaorer (cf. ll. 2, 19). 


IX, lines 6, 7. The restoration seems certain. There are remains of the final letter of 
béceos, and -epyacias xePadaroy exactly fills the space in line 7. 


Line 7. Lolling read [tl'''; but the remains indicate rather PrrIl. The sum spent 
for work on all four walls was thus 347 dr. 2 ob. Of this 285 dr. 1 ob. were spent on the 
south, east, and north walls. The remaining 62 dr. 1 ob. were spent on the west wall; the 
items were recorded in the gap between VIII and IX. 


Lines 8,9. Aé|[Oov apbuos :ATIII:]. This restoration, proposed by Dinsmoor (l.c., p. 
252), is to be preferred to dildo ’EXevowraxol :-?] suggested in Ath. Miit., XXXVI, 1911, 
p. 322, and adopted in J.G., I?, 373. The number, however, is not certain. Fourteen frieze 
blocks were laid on the south, east, and north walls; that some were laid on the west wall 
also can be inferred from the number of avriWéuara. 


Line 9. The number of Pentelic backers is six, two each on the south, east, and north 
walls, not four as given in Ath. Mitt., l.c., p. 322 and in I.G., I?, 373. The correction is 
due to Dinsmoor. 

Frickenhaus restores [— — Aifo Ai]ywato[ ... .] Il. But there is not space for \i0o, and 
the final o of Aiyivaio is not visible. We must read Ai]ywai[a — — ] Il. Sixteen Aeginetan 
backing-stones were laid on the south, east, and north walls. The number given here was 

1 On the site of this altar, see also Ch. V, p. 442, note 1. 


greater — at least twenty-two. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


347 


Dinsmoor formerly read Z[A]fll; he now (1926) reads 


L"\1; but I was unable to see the remains of [ when I re-examined the inscription in 1921. 
The contents of the inscription may be summed up as follows: 


0 OBéouts 
Line Wall Kind of block Material pe ber ot |- raster See Workman 
blocks| feet |yijKos| twos |mdaros|aaxos| per block} total 
See at ’ dr. ob dr. ob. 
1 | South | Frieze Eleusinian | 3 | 24/ 8 | 2 bord) 30 Simon 
4 % . : So BO beh 4a 2 1 jo) sive 33 
5 a a « ii eae a Bay fees pear e b 4 
7 : Backing | Pentelic 2 74H 32) 2 |... 22a 5, 2 : 
ie fs % Aeginetan Siicoe |. 4 2 13|. 2,5 | 22,4 < 
21 | East Frieze Eleusinian | 1 Oa Bole, hd 7,3 | 7,3] Simias 
23 “i Backing | Pentelic 2 8 | 4 2 3) 3 6 c 
29 | North | Frieze Eleusinian | 4 | 32| 8 7. Pe10 40 Phalakros 
31 ie Backing | Pentelic 2 eb: a pa ae #| 3 6 bs 
35 2 . Aeginetan | 8 | 32| 4 Ze ela ane) boae, 4 “ 
BERETA Le SUR Wiere 1 fe ke CE i nee eet N a OS Sreke ol asia eos Ne 180, 1 
"Evepyacia 
Line Wall bese he eee oF BAe Total Workman employed 
dr. ob dr. ob. 
We South, frieze 14 56 3,0 49 —kros living in Ko— 
ef Kast, frieze 13 6 3,3 5; 2 Simias 
41 North, frieze 14 56 3, 3 | 49 eee pOds 
WR ene cg re eae ka bc Miah: Seda oe 103, 2 


It remains to determine the positions of these blocks on the three walls. The Aeginetan 
backing-stones ‘‘between the beams” are manifestly to be brought into connection with 
the wooden ceiling of the interior. Those of Pentelic marble must then be assigned to the 
East Portico the ceiling of which was of marble. Since the epistyle and the frieze are pre- 
served on the east and south sides of the portico, and the positions of the ceiling beams are 
known from cuttings on the epistyle, it is possible to determine with certainty the positions 
of the backers. On the south and north sides there was exactly space for antithemata of the 
given thickness, three-quarters of a foot, between the frieze and the first ceiling beam. The 
length of the space to be filled is about eight feet, measuring from the inner face of the east 
frieze to the inner face of the front wall of the building. This is half a foot more than the 
combined length of the two antithemata on the south wall (a, b in Fig. 187). The cor- 


‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
' 
. 
. 
-¢ 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 


UN INGEN SNARE ASRS 


01 5 410 
Lot tt ig td 


Ficure 187. PLAN OF THE MAIN BUILDING AT THE LEVEL OF THE FRIEZE 


[ 348 ] 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 349 


responding marble antithemata on the north wall, c, d, are together eight feet long, and 
thus fill the space satisfactorily. These blocks were correctly located by Frickenhaus, l.c., 
pl. IV. 

On the East Fagade the inscription records the laying of one frieze block six feet long 
and two marble antithemata identical in size with those on the north wall. There is, how- 
ever, no room to place these slabs face to face with the frieze blocks. The space behind 
the frieze was, to the height of one foot and 
a quarter, taken up almost entirely by the 
ends of the ceiling beams and the interbeams, 
as is shown in Pirate XVII.!. The space 
above these, however, was filled by a special 
course of stone, the height of which, three- 
quarters of a foot, exactly corresponds with 
one of the dimensions of the antithemata of 
the inscription. It is evident, therefore, that 
the backing-stones were laid horizontally as 
shown in Figure 188. Their ends fitted against 
the blocks of the frieze which were specially 
dressed to receive them. <A confirmation of 
the correctness of this arrangement is afforded 
by the phraseology of the inscription. The 
dimension ‘‘two feet’”’ is called rdros (1. 25), 
whereas in the case of the frieze blocks, which 
were placed vertically, it is called twos (Il. 4, 
5, 22,30). Figure 187 shows the antithemata 
restored (e-l). Seven of them (e—k) were four 
feet long; the remaining space at the north 
would be filled by a block two feet and a half Ficure 188. secrion THROUGH EAST ENTABLATURE, 
long (1). This is proved conclusively by the Sationd eS ele en te Ramer 
cuttings in the frieze blocks for the clamps 
which held them to the backing (Fig. 12). Two further bits of evidence are to be noted. 
(1) As has been stated above, the inner faces of the frieze blocks are dressed to receive the 
ends of the backers. At a point 0.20 m. from the south end of block D there is a change in 
this dressing, indicating a joint between two backers. This point corresponds with the 
joint between blocks f and g of the backing. (2) One of the preserved interbeams has a 
dowel hole in its upper surface near the north end. The antithemata, which, like the frieze 
blocks, were laid from south to north, would also be dowelled at their north ends. The 
dowel in the interbeam thus corresponds with that in one of the blocks f, h, or j. 


1 For a description of the ceiling of the East Portico, see Ch. I, pp. 27-30. 


350 THE ERECHTHEUM 


It is not possible to identify with absolute certainty the three blocks laid during the 
prytany. But if, as seems probable, they were the last stones laid on the east front the 
range of probabilities is limited. The frieze block at the southeast corner (A) was dowelled at 
both ends, showing that it was laid before the adjoining blocks on the east and south walls. 
Blocks C-F have dowel holes at their north ends, indicating that they were laid in order 
from south to north. Block G has dowel holes in both ends, but apparently only that in the 
north end was used, for the position of two pry-holes in the epistyle block in the British 
Museum shows that they were cut to aid in setting block F, to the south (p. 23, note 3). 
It seems probable, therefore, that block G was the last stone laid on the east front. In that 
case the two antithemata would be j and k, if the dimensions are stated exactly, or k and 1, 
if the reduced length of the latter is disregarded in the inscription— the less probable 
alternative.’ 

The position and shape of the “backers between the beams, of Aeginetan stone” ? have 
to be determined without any help from the remains. According to the inscription the 
width of the frieze course, composed of the Eleusinian slabs and their Aeginetan backers, 
was two feet and a half. Frickenhaus, l.c., p.8, pl. IV, held that the Aeginetan backers be- 
longed only to the western compartment, and that they were made wider in order to increase 
the bearing surface for the ends of the main ceiling beams, which he supposed here to have 
run north and south. The beams would rest in cuttings in the antithemata, which could 
then be described as peraéd rdv EbAwv. But this theory must be rejected since it is incon- 
ceivable that in the Erechtheum blocks of poros should have been placed where they would 
_ be visible. The phrase ‘‘between the beams” can be interpreted in two ways: (1) The 
backers were placed at intervals, with spaces left between them for the ends of the ceiling 
beams which were laid across the building from north to south. (2) The backers were placed 
in a continuous line, with cuttings in them to receive the ends of beams running north and | 
south, or with a continuous cutting in the lower part of their inner face to give space for one 
beam running east and west (see Fig. 187). The choice between these alternatives depends 
upon the restoration of the wooden ceilings — a problem which admits of no certain solu- 


1 For further discussion of the east frieze, see Ch. I, pp. 28, 24. 

2 Aeginetan stone is mentioned in a number of inscriptions from Eleusis, —/.G., I, Suppl. 288a, p. 145, 1. 7 =I, 
336, AlOwr rou7 Aiywalwy cal Dreprdder; 225c, p. 168, B, col. 1, 1. 23 = I?, 3138, col. m1, 1. 92, Aivwator; I.G., II, 5, 8346, 
col. 1, 1. 98, opdvivror Aiywator radaoi; 10546, 1. 7, Nidous reuetv € Aiyivn[s THs wadakhs wérpas]; I.G., II, 8346, col. 1, 
1. 52, Alywator didor of éxi rod dpovpaiou Keivevor. This last passage is of importance for identifying the stone. The 
inner face of the wall referred to is built, in its lower courses, of conglomerate (apovpatos dios, cf. Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., 
XXXI, 1906, p. 149); above, both faces are composed of blocks of poros seemingly identical with that quarried at 
the Piraeus, and called ’Axrirns di#os. For the occurrence of this stone on Aegina, see Washington, A Petrographical 
Sketch of Aegina and Methana, p. 6, “This shoreland (North and Northwest), which is of late tertiary age, is com- 
posed of horizontal beds of marl and a soft, cream-colored limestone such as is known throughout Greece as ‘Poros 
stone’ (xépwos diGos).” Cf. also Schoene, Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 140. The temple of Aphaia is built of this native 
stone; cf. Fiechter, in Furtwangler, Aegina: das Heiligtum der Aphaia, p.21. A number of quarries are situated close 
to the water’s edge, and it would have been an easy matter to tumble the blocks into boats and float them to a point 
nearer to the Acropolis than the quarries of Piraeus. According to the testimony of an Athenian contractor, Aeginetan 
stone is lighter and softer than that from Akte, and therefore preferable for parts above the foundations. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS ool 


tion. In this book the theory is accepted that the main ceiling beams of the western com- 
partment ran east and west, with an intermediate support furnished by a great north and 
south girder placed at the level of the epistyle.!. The antithemata could not here be placed 
literally “‘between the beams.’’ In the East Cella the shorter span is from east to west. 
But L. B. Holland has proposed to restore the ceiling with the main beams running north 
and south in three bays, supported by two east and west girders at the level of the epistyle. 
His theory furnishes an explanation of three blocks mentioned in the report of 409 B.c. for 
which a position could not be found on the exterior walls. They are a block ranging with 
the epicranitis, ten feet long, one foot and a half high, and two blocks ranging with the 
epistyle, four feet long, one foot and a quarter wide (II, col. 1, ll. 22-28). The length of 
the former is one-third of the inner width of the East Cella. It may have been placed in 
the centre of the rear wall of the cella, with the two four-foot blocks of the epistyle course 
centred above it, as shown in Figure 189, filling the space between the two girders.? 


1 For the construction of the western ceiling and roof, see Ch. I, pp. 76, 154; Figs. 49, 111. 

* This restoration of the ceiling of the East Cella, although providing a place for the hitherto unplaced éyripopor, 
is yet open to certain objections which militate against its unqualified acceptance, without however, rendering it un- 
tenable as a possible solution of a troublesome problem. 

(1) It is difficult to find any satisfactory architectural reason for the presence of the two large wooden beams, 
running east and west, at the level of the epistyle. Such a combination of wood and marble in the same course is 
stylistically objectionable, unless it can be justified by constructive requirements. This is the case in the western part 
of the building, where the great transverse beam was demanded as an intermediate support both by the length of the 
span (30 ft.) and by the weight of the marble roof. Here no such necessity existed. The span (22 ft.) was not ex- 
cessive and the weight to be supported, being only that of a wooden ceiling, was slight. Under these circumstances 
such heavy beams — as large as the great western beam and larger than the ridge pole of the North Portico which 
bore a marble roof — seem uncalled for. We should rather expect a construction similar to that in the western division 
(Fig. 187) with smaller beams, running east and west, resting on the epistyle, although, of course, the spacing of these 
beams need not have been the same in the two divisions. Furthermore, as here restored, the central section of the 
ceiling is only eight feet wide, while the north and south sections are each nine feet — a curious anomaly, since, if the 
three sections were not equal in width, the central section, above the statue of the goddess and therefore of greater 
importance, would naturally have been the wider. But, against these objections, it may be remarked that the use 
of the two large beams would permit a lighter ceiling construction above them; and the ends of the beams would 
rest on the east wall between the door and each window, and thus be firmly supported. 

The undesirable combination of wood and marble in the same course could be avcided by restoring marble archi- 
traves, resting on interior columns, in place of the heavy wooden beams, but this hypothesis seems excluded by the 
report of the Commissioners of 409 s.c. (II, col. 1, ll. 40-48), which shows that any such columns and architraves, if 
they existed, were already in place, and that consequently the epicranitis beneath the architrave must also have al- 
ready been laid and, therefore, could not have figured in the list of missing blocks. 

(2) The introduction of a block ten feet long in the centre of the epicranitis is inconsistent with the normal sys- 
tem cf jointing in the Erechtheum, whereby in the walls each course breaks joints symmetrically with the course 
below, and furthermore calls for blocks of three different lengths in the epicranitis itself (Fig. 189) — unless indeed 
we may suppose that this course was composed of three blocks each ten feet long. In the epistyle, although the two 
blocks four feet long apparently restore the regular jointing, there is no structural reason for their employment in 
place of a single eight-foot block, such as on the side walls corresponds to the two plinths in the course below the 
epicranitis (PLATE XIV). 

(3) There is no obvious explanation for the use of a&vripopo: at all in the east cross-wall. The traces on the side 
walls show clearly that below the epicranitis the blocks in each course were the full width of the wall (Ch. I, p. 147), 
and it seems strange that this solid construction should have been abandoned in the centre of the two upper courses, 
where the weight of ceiling and of roof bore mcst heavily. So far as the evidence is preserved, it appears that, except 
in the case of the orthostates in the north and south walls, blocks less than the full thickness of the wall were used 
only where there was a distinct difference between the two faces of the wall (Ch. I, pp. 48, 50). 

(4) Finally, it is not easy to reconcile the position here assigned to the davrivopo with the language of the report 


302 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Two possible arrangements of the ceiling beams are shown in Figures 187 and 189. In 
the southern bay five beams are restored, spaced four feet apart, allowing room for two 
rows of four coffers in each space. The spaces between the ends of the five beams are filled 
by four Aeginetan backers (m,n, 0, p). The jointing of the cornice (indicated in dotted 
lines) shows that these four backers would furnish a secure bed for it. The remaining four 
Aeginetan blocks would follow west of the cross-wall (q, r, s, t). In Figure 187 one backer 
has been placed behind each of the six-foot frieze blocks, N, 0, P, Q, and a fifth, u, behind 
the frieze block R, extending to the west face of the metopon. In the northern bay the ends 
of the beams are assumed to have been inserted in cuttings in the backers, which would 
then be laid in a continuous line. The eight Aeginetan blocks laid on the north wall may 
have occupied the positions marked v, w, x, y, z, aa, bb, cc. 

In Figure 187 the three frieze blocks eight feet long, placed on the south wall during this 
.prytany, are given the positions K, L, M, next to the two blocks in situ at the east end 
which have different dimensions (A, B). The five blocks six feet long, N, 0, P, Q, R, follow to 
the west. The space remaining at the west end of the wall would be filled by the two-foot 
block, $, and a corner block, T, of about the same length as the corresponding block at 
the east end. T, like A and B, had presumably been placed in the first prytany. The two- 
foot block, $, may have been the last stone laid. It is noteworthy that the length of top 
surface dressed, fourteen tetrapodies, corresponds exactly with the combined lengths of 
blocks K-S. 

The length of the block, or blocks, previously laid at the east end of the north wall is 
not known. In Figure 187 two blocks, H, J, similar to A, B on the south wall, are restored. 
Next to these may have come the four eight-foot blocks, U, V, W, X, whose placing is 
recorded in the inscription. The length of top surface dressed, fourteen tetrapodies, fifty- 
six instead of thirty-two feet, suggests that twenty-four feet of frieze had been placed in 
the previous prytany, but had not received its érepyacia. 

In Figure 187 Aeginetan backing-stones of the same dimensions have been assigned to 
the west wall on the evidence of IX, 1. 9, where the total number of Aeginetan blocks laid 
during the prytany is recorded. The number cannot be restored with certainty; but it was 
higher than sixteen, and therefore must have included some blocks on the west wall as well 
of 409 .c. We have seen that all the other missing blocks (with the exception of the southern block in the west 
epistyle) can be assigned their places in regular succession at the west end of the south wall, and in view of the gen- 
erally clear and systematic enumeration of the Commissioners, it is strange that they should here include three blocks 
from the centre of an inside wall withovt any intimation of their position. The natural inference from the later state- 
ment of the report (II, col. 1, ll. 40-43) is rather that, except near the southwest corner, the walls were complete, in- 
cluding the epistyle, and this inference is strengthened by the passage referring to the inner walls (Il. 69-76), which 
certainly leaves the impression that all that remained to be done was te smooth part of the mouldings. Yet the listing 
of these abnormal blocks shows that they were actually used in the building, and it must be admitted that the 
attempt to find a more probable position for them, whether in the unfinished part of the south wall or elsewhere, has 
encountered even greater difficulties and more serious objections than those which have been urged against the resto- 


ration suggested in the text; no satisfactory alternative has, in fact, yet been presented, and in our opinion the ques- 
tion here discussed must remain for the present without a definitive answer. [J.M PGP 


*sa[t] oy} 10j syzoddns se (s9tap77) sadotd-ssodo JO SMOI OM4-AQITY] (MIA) SuLAI1eo “FUO] J09J 
‘sutjind OM} pur UReq-espli ayy (IA) {(s24ayogriow) sassoq (2) YIM payedodap ‘(vLvrI/NQyny) spr] (Pp) 
‘sda oo poddojs-sery} Suasoddns ‘(s997¥20) SUIBaq ULeU (D) JO SuTysIsuod 
"pig? ‘SUISSIUL SB papsOdaI 


}Yslo (ovo) Wudo) Si9yJeI JO SMOI MOJ (TA) posed YoryM uodn 
Aq potaaod ‘(n710}0Y) SOUTRIT Jo[[RUUS puUR JosIR[ (9) ‘(s9gr~DMyy) SIappeT (q) JO pesodutoos 
‘Suljlad ayy (A) ‘ezelaj ay} JO Sdayoeq uRJULSey oy} (AI) ‘aTAystdo oy} YYIM Sulsued siopss Uspoom peotjeyyodAy OA} ayy (IT) C3‘ 
‘a Aqstda oy] YIM SurBues syoo]q 7OO}-m0j OMY OY} (fT) YB ‘| ‘I ‘JOO “[] Ul Sutsstur se popsooes ‘stytURolds oy} YIM Sulsuvs Yor 100J-u9} ayy (1) :sMOYS aINsy sty, 


ISAM DNIMOOT ‘WITHO LSVA JO NOILOGS ‘681 AYQOLT 


fees tae lb oe tans) Sane ae oy ee eae eee eee a] 
Ol S b Q 


 — in 


Ud 
Leer | 
s een 


Z 


Li 
a! Eh 


y, Di sped Hill Uy epee Gs 


WL A 


[ 353 ] 


304 THE ERECHTHEUM 


as those on the north and south. In the drawing six blocks four feet long (dd-ii) are shown. 
The remainder of the frieze at the south end of the wall could not have had a backing, since 
the epistyle was here only one foot and a quarter wide. The total number of Aeginetan 
antithemata would thus be twenty-two. Dinsmoor formerly believed it to have been still 
greater, perhaps twenty-seven, and suggested that some Aeginetan stones may have been 
placed on the cross-wall in this prytany; he has now (1926) reduced the number to seven- 
teen (p. 347). 


IX, ll. 10-28. Woodwork. The second part of inscription LX, lines 10-28, records pay- 
ments to sawyers and carpenters. The heading to be restored at the beginning of line 10 
is probably picOduara. Cf. XI, col. 11, 1. 25, réxroot proPdyara Kal kabevepiova. In line 13 [kat 
avvépy jo[t|s is to be restored; ef. XIII, col. 1, 1. 33, Paséiou €v KoAdur ou oixoyte kal cuvépyou. The 
payments were made to two men only, the plural form, ovvépyous, implying that the assist- 
ant varied during the twelve days. Rhadios occurs as a sawyer also in XI, col. 11, |. 37 
and XIII, col. 1, ll. 33, 40. 

Lines 10-19. An attempt has been made by Frickenhaus, A./.A., X, 1906, pp. 12, 18, 
pl. IV, to use the timbers mentioned in lines 13-19 for the restoration of the ceiling of 
the East Cella. The restorations [puv]uds, 1. 14, [PAAAIIII, 1. 15, AAPE|[FF], 1. 17, and [zer- 
pa|xaveixoot, 1. 18, are due to him. The term fuyds seems to denote a beam of some special 
shape or variety, probably an unsquared log.! The restorations of the numbers 84 (1. 15) 
and 28 (ll. 16, 17) seem certain since they fit the space satisfactorily and are multiples of 
fourteen. In line 18 Kirchhoff restored [évvea]kateixoor, Michaelis [rertapa|kavetxoor. A posi- 
tion can more easily be found on the building for a beam twenty-four feet long than for one 
twenty-nine feet long, but there is not space for seven letters before xai. Frickenhaus 
therefore writes [revpa]kateixoor, which has been adopted in the text. 

The East Cella was twenty-two feet deep. A beam twenty-four feet long would thus 
be of the right length to span this space, allowing a bearing surface of one foot at each end. 
The beam mentioned could therefore be one of the main beams of the roof (Michaelis, Ath. 
Mitt., XIV, 1889, p. 359), or one of the main beams of the ceiling, as Frickenhaus sup- 
poses. According to him the five cuts (rowai) indicate that one large timber was sawn 
into five beams, which formed the main beams of the cella, running east and west, as 
shown in his drawing, l.c., pl. IV. The eight-foot puwot would be of approximately the 
right length to serve as cross-beams. According to him fourteen puoi sawn six times 
would produce eighty-four cross-beams. But there are two flaws in this explanation: 
(1) Frickenhaus fails to show how the timber twenty-four feet long could be sawn five 
times to produce five beams, and how each of the fourteen puyot could be sawn six times 

1 Cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge?, 587, 1. 307, fi\a mredéwa povdBora Gv wapehaBouey Katexpnodpeba eis THY Tpoxtdelay 
AAD |. érepa déBoda III[]. elrepa puuetia edréwva povdBora AA. érepor diBorov |. érepor pupod SiBo\a AAT. érepa pupeta 


yovdBora (|. The word has among other meanings that of carriage pole. This suggests that the suyol of the inscrip- 
tion were round logs which had not yet been hewn or sawn into their final shape. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 359 


to produce eighty-four cross-beams. (2) There would be twenty-one or more cross-beams 
in each bay. As the depth of the cella was only twenty-two feet, this arrangement leaves 
no room for the coffers between the cross-beams, for the existence of which there is clear 
evidence (see p. 365). It seems impossible to bring the eight-foot puyot into connection with 
the ceiling of the East Cella, whereas, as will appear below, the beams into which they were 
sawn were of the length required for the rafters of the roof over that part of the temple. 
This roof appears to have been laid in 409/8 B.c. Its iuayres, or cross-pieces, are men- 
tioned in XI, col. 11, ll. 16 ff., and the laying of tiles over at least a portion of it seems to be 
recorded ibid., ll. 26 ff. Wemay therefore, with Michaelis, assign the twenty-four foot beam 
and the eight-foot puyoi to this roof. The former may have been the ridge beam (kopud¢atos), 
which was of this length, and had its upper surface inclined in two directions. A round log, 
could be sawn five times to produce a beam of the required shape as shown in Figure 190 a. 


1 5 2 


Figure 190. DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING THE SAWING OF TIMBERS 


But another explanation of the five “‘cuts”’ is also possible. The distance from the ridge to 
the cornice on the north and south walls is great enough to warrant the restoration of a pur- 
lin on each side. The roof over the western compartment had such purlins, if a cutting in 
a preserved block of the west cornice has been correctly interpreted.t_ The cutting is situ- 
ated, not, as would be expected, half way between the north wall and the apex of the roof, 
but considerably nearer to the wall. This was due to the complicated construction of the 
ceiling and roof over the western compartment, with its great girder at the level of the 
epistyle, supported by a strut at each side.? The purlins were probably placed above 
the junction of the struts with the girder (Fig. 49). The East Cella required no such 
north and south girder, and it is reasonable to assume that the purlins were in the normal 
position — half way between the ridge beam and the cornice (PLatE XVII). There would 
then be on each side two rows of rafters eight feet long, i.e., of the length of the puyoi in 
the inscription. The twenty-four foot timber could be sawn five times to produce the two 
purlins as shown in Figure 1908. Since the eight-foot timbers are one-third as long as the 
twenty-four foot timbers, and the cost of each cut of the former is one-third that of the 
latter, it is likely that the shorter logs were of the same diameter as the twenty-four foot log. 


1 See Ch. I, pp. 74f. 2 See Ch. I, pp. 76, 154. 


306 THE ERECHTHEUM 


They could be sawn six times to produce rafters of reasonable thickness in the manner 
shown in Figure 190 c. The fourteen puuot would produce fifty-six eight-foot rafters, or 
enough for fourteen rows on each side of the roof. The spacing of the rafters will be dis- 
cussed below in the commentary on XI, col. 11, which contains further evidence as to the 
construction of the roof over the East Cella (pp. 368 f.). 

Lines 19-23 deal with the construction of éxeroi. They are mentioned also in XXVIII, 
lines 38 and 43; and the word is perhaps to be restored in X, col. 111, 1. 80. They seem 
to have been of some extent, as in XXVIII they are measured in lengths of twenty 
feet. The word édyerés usually designates a water channel. But it is difficult to imagine 
a use for long water channels of wood in connection with the Erechtheum. A different 
explanation is proposed by Ebert, Fachausdrticke des griechischen Bauhandwerks, p. 50. 
He refers to an Eleusinian inscription which records the delivery of Macedonian wood 
els Tovs dxeTovs TaV Ti[pywv] Kal Ta dTEpTOVaLa Tots dxeTOs.! These dxerol are evidently sup- 
ports for horizontal beams. He supposes that the horizontal beams formed a gallery 
around the tower, and that the oxeroi were oblique struts with their lower ends fastened into 
the wall and their upper ends supporting the gallery. As he can find no place in the Erech- 
theum for such struts, he assumes that they were consoles, or modillions, projecting horizon- 
tally from the wall, and supporting the ends of ceiling beams. This explanation is improb- 
able. But the Eleusinian inscription suggests that the 6xeroi may have been the two struts 
which supported the heavy girder running north and south in the western compartment. 
There is, however, the objection that the oxeroi are referred to in the plural, whereas there 
seem to have been but two struts. This interpretation, also, does not account for the meas- 
urement in lengths of twenty feet. The problem, therefore, cannot be regarded as solved. 

Lines 23-28. Payments for planing (dvagéoavrt) and “‘truing up” (drappvbpicavze) 
straight-edges. These were evidently of wood and longer than the stone ones mentioned in 
VII, line 4, and elsewhere. They are probably similar to those mentioned frequently in 
the building inscriptions from Lebadeia, J.G., VII, 3073, ll. 107-110, 133-136, 154-155, 
and especially ll. 182-186.2 


X, col. 1. Work on the cornice. — The restoration of the missing portions is in part due 
to Frickenhaus (l.c., p. 11). The text given above differs from his in the substitution of 
nevtérov for terparov (1. 23), of hérepa for yeioa (1. 25), and in the addition of the numerals 
in lines 23, 25, 29, 32. The inscription contains the account of sums expended for work on 
the cornice. The blocks recorded are: (1) A certain number, presumably of the normal 
dimensions, 4 X 3 X 14 ft. (2) One block which, from the fact of its being mentioned 
separately, must have differed in some respect from the others. (3) An angle block 
measuring 6 X 33 X 1; ft. (4) An angle block measuring 74 x 34 X 11 ft. The dimen- 
sions of the various cornice blocks are known from II, col. 1, ll. 53-72. They are as follows: 


1 Dittenberger, Sylloge?, 587, Il. 305 ff. 2 Cf. above, p. 344, note 1. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 307 


pjKos TAATOS ) TAaXOS 
ks 8 4 | 3 | ie 
Pre ocks at east end... 2. eee 6 33 | 1} 
eee 
PR aie as 73 34 | Lt 
Angle blocks at west end ) 
Bou er na 6 31 | lt 


The block referred to in lines 29-32 of the inscription under discussion is evidently 
identical with block A, and belonged to the west cornice. The heading in lines 19-20 has’ 
therefore been correctly restored as émi réu Tolxor Tét tpds 76 Ilavépoceio, since there is no 
space below line 20 for a new heading. It follows that all the blocks recorded belong to the 
west cornice. The angle block mentioned in lines 26-29 cannot, therefore, have been one 
of the blocks at the east end, as Frickenhaus supposes. It must be identical with block B 
in the above table, in spite of the discrepancy in width. 

The arrangement of the cornice blocks is shown in Figure 191. The angle blocks at the 
east end were laid with their long sides to the east.!. Between them there was space for six 
blocks of the normal length. The arrangement at the west end was different, but like that 
on the North Portico (PLarms XIII, XIV). The explanation of the abnormal length of 
block A and the reason for assigning it to the southwest angle with its long face to the south 
have already been suggested above (p. 307) in the discussion of the niche. As a result of 
the thinning of the walls at this corner the top surface of the frieze was here only one foot 
instead of two feet and a half wide, and formed a weak support for the heavy angle cornice. 
At a point seven feet and a quarter from the west face of the cornice the wall began again 
to have its regular width. By making the angle block seven feet and a half long it was pos- 
sible to give it a bearing surface a quarter of a foot wide at its east end on the frieze and its 
backing. In Figure 191 block B has been placed, like A, with its short face to the west, for 
the following reasons. If it had been placed with its long face to the west, the space 
between the two corner blocks would have been twenty-six feet and a half long. This space 
would be filled by six blocks of the normal length and one block two feet and a half long, 
or by five normal blocks and one block six feet and a half long. With the other arrange- 
ment the space would be twenty-nine feet long, calling for six four-foot blocks and one five- 
foot block. In both eases one irregular block was necessary. Returning to the inscription 
we find that a certain number of four-foot blocks are recorded (the number is probably to 
be restored as six), and one block which differed in some way. The difference must have 
been in its length, which was, as we have just seen, either 23, 63, or 5 feet. There can be 


1 This is proved by dowel cuttings in the frieze, see Ch. I, p. 24; Fig. 12. 


308 THE ERECHTHEUM 


no doubt as to which of the two dimensions is correct: rev7éror fits the space exactly; dvoty 
rodoiy kal heuirodio or héxs rodév Kal hey7odio is impossible. Block B was therefore laid with 
its short face to the west. Next to it on the west wall came the six four-foot blocks C, D, E, 
F, G, H; the space between H and A was filled by a five-foot block, J. Block D is preserved, 


ee 
0,9, 
200205 


35550 GO GN X 
Pris Lo EEE LE SE od ereaeae: RR 

SKK RRND Macetorecerens Ceroreseereeeeeete £505 SX 

RLS 4 p Mate wratere 55S Y 


OOOO OOOO OO OOO OUND LD OEE OC OOOO E TS | an ee 
Beineemneereeneenes meen 
ONO CeO NOD 
SPR KKK KR RR RE NS 
OPS 52552525909 S55 
SPOOR KRIS 


Figure 191. ARRANGEMENT OF CORNICE AND TYMPANUM BLOCKS 


and could have occupied only this position, if the cutting in it has been correctly explained 
as intended to receive the end of a purlin.! Block J has been placed at the south end of the 
wall in the drawing on the following reasoning. The frieze at its south end for a distance 
of seven feet had no backing. If a four-foot cornice block had been put in the place of J, it 
would have had as support only the thin Eleusinian slab of the frieze. A five-foot block, 
on the other hand, as can be seen in Figure 191, would have a bearing half a foot wide at 


1 For a description of this block, and the reasons for assigning it to this position in the roof, see Ch. I, p. 74. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 309 


its north end on the first Aeginetan backing-stone (cf. above, p. 352, and Fig. 187), thus 
considerably increasing its stability. 

The work on the two angle blocks seems not to have been the @éois, since 6év7. does 
not fill the space in lines 28 and 31. The blocks were noted in the report (II, col. u, ll. 66, 
71) as being in an unfinished state. The work here recorded was probably the final carving 
of the mouldings. We may therefore restore, with Frickenhaus, éxroéoayre in both cases, 
on the analogy of X, col. 1, Il. 29, 38, 37. 

The only remaining difficulty is caused by the varying widths given for block B. The 
plan of the cornice on paper calls for a block three feet and a half wide. But, as executed, 
the stone may have been somewhat narrower, in which case the width, three feet and a 
quarter, given in the report would be justified. 

Dinsmoor’s differing restoration of the west cornice is discussed below, p. 361. 


X, col. u. Work on the pediments.—The first five lines contain the end of the account of 
one prytany and the beginning of that of the succeeding one. These would be the third 
and fourth or the fourth and fifth, according as one assumes inscription VIII a to belong 
to the second or the third prytany. The name to be restored in lines 4, 5 is perhaps ’Apewddo, 
the treasurer of the funds of Athena in 408/7 B.c., as is known from J.G., I, 138, 1. 1 (12, 
Zo8, 1.265). But, as in the following year, the member of the board who had special 
charge of the funds used for the Erechtheum need not have been its chairman. The resto- 
ration is therefore not certain. 

The account records work on the pediment blocks of the east and west gables of the main 
building and their backing-stones. The terms used to designate the various blocks are 
easily intelligible, though they are not found elsewhere with these special meanings. The 
Kopupaios is evidently the central block. The blocks next to it on either side were described 
as mpos (1. 13) or ize (1. 31) 7d xopvdaiw. The pediments ended with two wedge-shaped 
blocks, xepxvduatov. The work done during the prytany, referred to as 76 éAdourov Epyor, 
lines 11, 16, and described by the participle éxroécayzi, lines 29, 33, 37, must have been the 
chiselling down and finishing of the visible and contact surfaces of the stones which had 
been only roughly blocked out at the quarries. 

Line 34. Lolling gives here [‘Ep]uay (par) ’A@[u]? [-F]} vreraco. Michaelis (J.—M., App. 
Ep., p. 103) writes [- Juayad..:.:umera. Formerly (Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, p. 350) he 
restored [’Ep]uay. ’A@|y. oix.] iweraiov, explaining tizeraios as the equivalent of 6 rpds (bird) 7G 
kopudalw. Fabricius (quoted ibid., p. 352, note 1) derived the word from an unknown root, 
iaérn, which he interpreted as the name for a beam parallel to the ridge beam, and situated 
between it and the side walls, i.e., a purlin. The ends of such a beam would be let into the 
jaerator as the xopvdatov was let into the xopvdato.. But this explanation is far-fetched. 
Kirchhoff’s reading, . . waya6[o. Xolvreraué gives a simple and satisfactory solution of the 


1 Cf. the use of xopydaiov to denote the ridge beam of a roof, J.G., II, 1054, ll. 49, 52. 


360 THE ERECHTHEUM 


problem. The deme name is, of course, in the dative, the final syllable (.) having been 
omitted by the stonecutter.! 

Line 35. There is room after the numeral A for another letter. Whether the number 
was. AA or Af or At must remain uncertain. 

Line 43. The restoration [r]és Au[éves] is due to Lolling. Michaelis (Ath. Mitt., l.c.) 
restored these lines as follows: 

[él rots] kara [rv Buwydr kioow: Tov mpds TOD Bwyod T)fjs Aulavns — — — — xi]ova IP. But this 
gives too many letters to line 43. 

The facts gained from the inscription may be conveniently summarized as follows: 


. Dimensions 
Gable Designation of blocks na erecta of eas! : 
bjkos TAGTOS TAXOS 

East KOPUPQLOS nes i aadigae so bin retee tee ane sina 4 ti 5) 33 1 

oi ot pds: TOU Kopu@alot 2a. ee 2 2 ‘ 3 ol 

fi REPKLOLONOU ease te Oe Le eee 2 2 5 13 1 
West KD PUDULOS. PU) 2 BPRS ae ee en eS 1 a 4 4 13 

Ob DIO TOL ROPUMALOL. foie cantrac steraes Fee 1 1 é 3 1 

Zi KEPRUOLOLOE siat.c tay ee eae eee ee 1 1 5 15 1 


Some aiervato. are also mentioned in the report, II, col. 1, ll. 73-79, as half-worked. 


They are as follows: 
6 blocks. yfxos 7, tAaros 34, raxos 1 
2 iz (T§ ae (79 33, ce 1 


The two five-foot blocks are evidently the xopydatos and its backer of the east gable. 
Similarly the six seven-foot blocks must be identical with the six blocks wpds (i216) 7ét Kopu- 
daio. in the preceding table, in spite of the discrepancy in height. The heights of the xopv- 
dato. on the east and west gables are given as three feet and a half and four feet respectively. 
These variations are due to the fact that the dimensions are given in round numbers. PLATE 
XXI and Figure 191 show the two gables restored. The slope of the gable is assumed to 
have been 1: 4, like that of the North Portico; confirmation of this is furnished by a pre- 
served tympanum block belonging to the Roman rebuilding of the West Facade.? The apex 
of the gable would thus be about three feet and three-quarters high, or halfway between 
the heights given for the xopyvdato. The greatest height of the adjoining blocks would 
then be a little more than three feet in the east gable, and nearly three feet and a quarter 
in the west, so that again both dimensions given would be approximately correct. The 
height of the xepxdcato. in both gables would be almost exactly one foot and a half. 


1 A workman from Xypete, [—Xo]vrera:év, is mentioned in X, col. 111, ll. 38, 39. 
2 See Ch. I, p. 75. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 361 


Dowel holes in preserved portions of the horizontal cornice of the east front confirm the 
restoration of the east tympanum shown in PLatre XXI.! 

The outer angles of the tympanum were half a foot beyond the ends of the xepxidvator in 
the east gable, one foot in the west. The small, wedge-shaped spaces remaining would be 
filled by special stones, or, as in the Parthenon, by projections left on the angle blocks of 
the raking cornice. 

The xopvdaios of the west gable differed from that of the east in three particulars: (1) it 
was four instead of five feet long; (2) it was one foot and a half instead of one foot thick; 
(3) it had no backing. A reasonable explanation of these differences is as follows: With 
a five-foot block the joints of the aiervato. would have coincided with those of the cornice in 
four places (marked a, b, c, d in Fig. 191). By using a four-foot block this fault was 
avoided in every case. The thickness of the xopv@atos and the absence of a backing are 
probably due to an effort to reduce the weight carried by the epistyle in the southern half 
of the West Fagade. As can be seen in the restored elevation (PLATE XIII) the door in the 
west wall came under the second column from the south, which carried half the weight of 
the second and third epistyle blocks. The reduction of the thickness of the xopydatos from 
two feet to one foot and a half would decrease the weight borne by the third epistyle. 
Similarly the reduction of the block t6 rét kopydaion would lessen the weight borne by 
the second epistyle. A still stronger reason existed for lightening the xepxid:atos at the 
south end of the pediment, since it was above the first epistyle block which, as has been 
shown above, was of only half the normal width. It seems likely, therefore, that the two 
blocks south of the xopv@atos resembled it in being one foot and a half thick and in not 
having backing-stones. This accounts for the fact that only six of the normal blocks io 
T6t Kopvpaio. and six normal xepxidator. instead of eight are mentioned in the inscription. 
The work on the two missing blocks was probably left to be done in a later prytany. 

The restoration of the west cornice and tympanum given above was published in Ath. 
Mitt.,. XXXVI, 1911, pp. 334 ff., and has been criticized by W. B. Dinsmoor (A.J.A., l.c., 
pp. 253 ff.). He there proposes a different solution of the problem. He accepts the loca- 
tion of the southwest angle block of the cornice with its long face to the south, but prefers 
to place the northwest angle block in the normal position, with its long face to the west. 
This leaves room between the two angle blocks for five blocks of the normal length, four feet, 
and one block six feet and a half long, next to the southwest corner. This latter block 
might be listed as seven feet long; and the word herramop fits the space in inscription X, 
col. 1, 1. 23, as well as revrérov. The combined length of the cornice blocks according to 
this arrangement would be 6 + (5 X 4) +7 + 34, or 363 feet, whereas the total length of 
the east cornice (6 + (6 X 4) + 6) is 36 feet. To account for this discrepancy Dinsmoor 
resorts unnecessarily to a complicated calculation of the length of the foot used by the 


1 On the restoration of the east pediment from the evidence furnished by the existing cornice blocks, see Ch. I, 
pp. 24-27, 


362 THE ERECHTHEUM 


architect and the theoretical and actual lengths of the blocks. The theoretical length of 
the west cornice, thirty-six feet, can be more simply arrived at by assuming that the west 
face of the southwest corner block was actually only three feet and a quarter long, and 
that the adjoining block was six feet and three-quarters long. The dimensions three feet 
and a half and seven feet would be accurate enough for the purposes of the account. In 
favor of his restoration he urges that it leaves the normal jointing system of the cornice 
undisturbed except at the southwest corner, and that the problem caused by the thin walls 
here is solved in the simplest manner by suppressing a joint on the south and shifting a 
joint on the west. A further argument in its favor is that the seven-foot block has a bear- 
ing surface two feet and a half long at its north end on the full width of the frieze course, 
whereas a five-foot block would have a bearing surface of only half a foot. Dinsmoor also 
holds that the southwest corner block was actually only seven feet and a quarter long, 
and thus did not extend even a quarter of a foot over the metopon. He supposes that 
the frieze block under it was two feet thick, with its soffit exposed in the niche, as along 
the west side of the southwest wing of the Propylaea. 

The reduction in width of the xopvdatos of the west pediment to four feet was explained 
above as an expedient to avoid having the joints of the tympanum correspond in four 
places with those of the cornice. With Dinsmoor’s arrangement this problem would not 
arise. He therefore proposes the following explanation: ‘“‘It is apparent that the builders 
of the Erechtheum employed every device known to them to decrease the tremendous 
strain on the lintel spanning the tomb of Cecrops. A possible device would have been 
the cantilever system employed in the Propylaea (A.J.A., 1910, pp. 146 ff.); the south 
xepktocatos could have been so designed as to balance itself and its superposed load ex- 
actly above the southernmost column, relieving the south anta of much of the weight. 
Then the xepxudcatos would have been seven feet in length; to allow for this increased 
length, the next block and the xopydaios would have been reduced, the latter, as we learn 
from the inscription, to four feet. The north half of the tympanum seems to have remained 
undisturbed, so that the xopydatos would have been centred one half foot north of the axis of 
the pediment.” 

There is not sufficient evidence to decide the problem. The solution shown in Figure 191 
seems preferable, because it involves no juggling with the recorded dimensions of the 
cornice blocks, and because it leaves the xopudaios of the pediment in the exact centre. 


X, col. ur. Work on a Ceiling.— The remains from column ut of inscription X record 
work on a wooden ceiling. This is clear from the technical terms used (xadtupara, 1. 32; 
kupatio, |. 35) and the names of the workmen (Manis, l. 37; Dromon, |. 40). But a satis- 
factory restoration of the text is impossible. Inscriptions Vp and VII, on the reverse of 
the Chandler stele, contain specifications for the construction of a ceiling, presumably to 
be undertaken in 409/8 B.c. Work on a wooden ceiling is described in all the three extant 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 363 


columns of inscription XI, as well as in the small fragment XII. The account of 408/7 B.c. 
also includes payments for work on a ceiling of the interior.1. It is important, therefore, to 
determine whether all the items in both accounts refer to the same or to different ceilings, 
and, in the latter case, which ceiling was laid in the first year and which in the second. 
With these problems is connected the problem of the position of the ancient image, for in 
XI, col. 1m, ll. 42-46, is the account of a payment for painting fourteen coffer-lids “upon 
the ceiling, upon the beams above the image.” This is preceded by an item regarding the 
building up of the wall of the workshop ‘‘after the beams had been carried out.’’ These 
beams were evidently of considerable length; they may have been the main beams of a 
ceiling or the ridge beams and purlins of a roof, which, as appears from lines 15-31, was 
laid during this prytany. The term geXis, however, is not found in the sense of roof beam. 
If the image stood in the East Cella, the roof and the ceiling referred to in the account of 
409/8 B.c. must be those of this cella, whether the fourteen coffer-lids belong to the main 
ceiling or to that of a small aedicula for the image, such as is proposed by Petersen (Burg- 
tempel, pp. 115 ff.). If the image stood in the inner of the two western compartments, 
the roof referred to must belong to the western division of the temple. It cannot be 
brought into connection with the aedicula, which Holland, in agreement with Petersen, 
supposes to have housed the image. For, as will appear below, the number of iuayres, or 
cross-pieces, is far too great for this hypothetical aedicula. There is, moreover, reason to 
believe that the western ceiling, and consequently the roof above it, was not laid till 
408/7 B.c. Inscription XIII, col. 1, ll. 3 ff., records the laying of ceiling beams (cediées) 
including one of a special shape. It is described as a ceAls kauridn, or “‘bent beam,” a 
name which suggests that it differed from the other beams by its deviation from a straight 
line. At first sight it seems possible to identify this beam with the great girder running 
north and south, at the level of the epistyle, above the west cross-wall.? The struts by 
which it was strengthened would give it a ‘‘bent”’ appearance.’ This girder furnished an 
intermediate support for the ‘“‘other beams,’ of which there were probably six rows, run- 
ning east and west —four on the axes of the columns on the west wall, one each next to 
the north and south walls. Against this identification, however, is the extremely small 
cost of the work. It is hard to believe that the great transverse beam and the somewhat 
smaller ‘‘other beams”’ could have all been set in place by six men in a single day; yet 
this is the natural conclusion to be drawn from the wages paid, a drachma per man. 
Another interpretation of the ‘‘bent beam”’ has been proposed by L. B. Holland.* He 
supposes that the niche in the southwest corner of the building was triangular in plan, i.e., 


1 XIII, col. 1, ll. 3-14; 35-41; col. u, Il. 6-20. XVI, col. 1, ll. 1-9. XVII, col. 1, Il. 1-8; 69-84. 

2 Ch. I, p. 154; Pirate XV; Figs. 49, 111. 

3 See A.J.A., XIV, 1910, p. 296. The identification there proposed has since been abandoned for the reason 
mentioned in the text. 

4 See B.C.H., XLVI, 1922, p. 479, for a summary of the paper, read before the American School at Athens, in 
which this restoration was first proposed. 


364 THE ERECHTHEUM 


that the edge of its floor slab ran diagonally from the metopon to the first column on 
the west wall. The niche was hidden from view by a wooden grille similar to those in 
the adjoining intercolumniations (cf. the commentary on XI, col. 1, ll. 31-34, p. 370). 
The ceiling beam next to the south wall would thus run east and west as far as the 
metopon, and continue in a diagonal line, above the grille, to the first column. Such 
a beam might be called a ceXis xaurbAn, to distinguish it from the other five straight ceniées. 
According to both these theories the ceiling laid in 408/7 B.c. belonged to the western part 
of the temple. 

The ceiling laid in 408/7 B.c. seems to have differed from that made in the previous year 
in one particular. Its coffers were decorated with plastic floral ornaments (xédxn, d&xavOa), 
as appears from XVII, col. 1, Il. 1-8, where the making of models for such ornaments is 
recorded, and 7bid., ll. 69-85, where payments for the execution of twenty-six of them are 
noted. If, as seems probable, the fourteen coffer-lids painted in 409/8 B.c. (XI, col. 1, 
ll. 42-46) belonged not to an aedicula but to the main ceiling, it follows that that ceiling 
had no plastic decoration, except possibly for the zoudddvyes, or bosses mentioned in XI, 
col. 1, 1. 834. In other words it was similar in design to the marble ceilings of the East 
Portico and the Porch of the Maidens, whereas the ceiling constructed in 408/7 B.c. re- 
sembled that of the North Portico, which had floral ornaments.! The ceiling with painted 
kadvupatra would therefore be that of the East Cella, that with plastic rosettes in the 
coffers would belong to the western part of the temple, where, as in the North Portico, 
the ceiling was at a considerably greater distance above the floor. 

The items regarding ceiling construction thus support the theory that the image stood 
in the East Cella. They cannot, however, be regarded as absolute proof. For the fourteen 
kaAvupara may have belonged to an aedicula standing in the inner of the two western com- 
partments, and the ceiling and roof laid in 409/8 B.c. may have been only the portion 
above the aedicula. In that case the ceiling laid in 408/7 B.c. would be that above the 
westernmost compartment, and none of the preserved accounts of either year need refer 
to the ceiling of the East Cella. 

Of the accounts for work on the ceiling, inscription XI, col. 1, is the longest and best 
preserved. But even this passage, studied with the help of the smaller fragments of speci- 
fications (V B; VII) and accounts (X, col. m1; XI, cols. 1 and 11), does not furnish suf- 
ficient data for a restoration of the ceiling. The work described varies somewhat in the 
different sections of ceiling, and, although certain technical terms and formulae recur re- 
peatedly, the correspondence of the several items is not close enough to make it possible in 
every case to fill the lacunae. The restored text and translation given above are not 
therefore to be accepted as certain in every detail. 

1 Its coffers show holes for their attachment. The coffer-lids of the East Portico are lacking, but the shallow- 


ness of the coffers suggests that they were undecorated except by a painted design. The ground of the coffers in 
the Porch of the Maidens was also left plain. See Ch. I, pp. 30, 89, 116; Puares XVIII, XXIII, XXVI; Fig. 56. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 365 


It is safe to assume that the wooden ceilings of the interior bore a general resemblance 
to the marble ones of the porches. That is, there were main beams supporting coffers of 
more or less elaborate construction. The main beams were called ced\ises. This can be 
inferred with certainty from the context in XI, col. m1, 1. 38, which records the rebuilding 
of the wall of the workshop after the beams had been carried out. The word is apparently 
used in the same sense in XIII, col.1, ll. 3 ff. Other passages, however, suggest that cedris 
was also used to designate the space between two main beams, i.e., one section or compart- 
ment, made up of a single or a double row of coffers. So in XI, col. 11, 1. 22, [és rabrev 
Té|y cedida Kdipaxida é[xrovécayt.] is to be translated: ‘‘for making a ‘ladder’ for this sec- 
tion.” Cf. also XI, col. m1, ll. 42 ff., caddupara ypddoarre Allll, ert rev opopev, ext Tas 
geXldas Tas brép T6 AyaAuaTos. It was not the beams, but the lids of the coffers in a com- 
partment between two beams which were painted.! 

Upon the cedides rested the framework of the coffers. If this were made in sections 
containing two or more openings for coffers, as shown in Figure 192, each section might 
appropriately be named a kA.yaxis, or “ladder.” That this term was used for the secondary 
members of the ceilings appears from VII, |. 12, rév cedida Kal ras kAuaxidas, and XI, col. 
I, 1. 22, [és rabrev rély cedida xArwaxida éxrovécayte. Work on one xAmaxis is recorded in XI, 
col. 1, ll. 38-44. The remains of XI, col. 11 contain accounts of work on two ceNdides, or 
sections of ceiling, each evidently composed of more than one xAtpaxis. 

Above the square openings of the kArwaxides were placed frames, rAaiova (Figs. 189, 193) ;? 
ef. VII, l. 2, ra rAaiova ra émi Tas KAwaxidas. The references to these are somewhat confus- 
ing. In V B, |. 4 mention is apparently made of a large frame, [76 rAat]ovov 7d péya. Two 
sizes of zAaiova are also distinguished in XJ, col. m1, ll. 11-14. Square frames are specified 
in XI, col. 1, Il. 14 and 39, implying that some of the frames were of a different shape, 
unless we assume the adjective to be redundant. They varied also in material, for box- 
wood frames are specified in XI, col. 11, 1. 31 (and perhaps in 1. 24). 

The coffers of the ceiling described in the account of 409/8 B.c. appear to have been 


1 At Delphi stone cedides for the colonnade of the temple of Apollo are mentioned, B.C.H., XXII, 1898, p. 304, 
1. 40, zobpov ad Oaddcons eis 76 iepov, ceNldwv Terpwxovta els Tav Twepicracw; |. 45, cedliwy &E Temas ex KoptvOov. These 
are clearly the main beams of a ceiling. Cf. Bourguet’s note, ibid., p. 316. The word occurs also in the inscription 
relating to the building of the Tholos at Epidauros, J.G., IV, 1485, 1. 162, eedcxapes ras OuuédXas 76 oTpGya Torjoar TO & 
TG Tepioraot, ceXidas tevtHxovta dbo. According to Lechat (Defrasse-Lechat, Epidaure, p. 117) and Cavvadias (T6 
‘Iepdv rijs "Extdatpou, p. 50) these are the ceiling beams of the colonnade of the Tholos. But the word orp&ua suggests 
that these cediées were rows of paving slabs; and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the pavement of 
the colonnade actually had fifty-two rows of slabs. So Stais, ’Ed¢. ’Apx., 1892, p. 90; Cavvadias, Fouilles d’Epidaure, 
I, p. 100; Keil, Ath. Mitt., XX, 1895, p. 106; Fraenkel, J.G., IV, 1485, note on line 162. 

In naval architecture the term cedis designates the thwarts or cross-beams of a ship, which serve to strengthen 
the walls of the hull, form the seats of the rowers in small, undecked ships, and support the decks of larger vessels, 
such as triremes. Cf. Cartault, La tritre athénienne, p. 41. Such beams were called wepirévacov (Pollux, I, 92), cé\ua, 
fvyés, and cedis (Eustathius, 1041, 27). Cf. also Pollux, I, 88, and Hesychius, s.v. cedides and xivduvos. 

2 The terms «Awaxis and wAaiovov are used in the same sense in a Delian inscription, B.C.H., X XIX, 1905, p. 460, 
1. 13, [ras re] kAquaxidas wacas Tas Gvw cai rT[a r]Aaiora; also Il. 15, 16. The inscription, which deals with the laying of 
a coffered ceiling over the colonnade of the temple of Apollo, has not yet been satisfactorily elucidated. 


366 THE ERECHTHEUM 


three-stepped, the lowest step being furnished by the ‘‘ladders,’”’ the middle step by the 
larger waiova, the top step by the smaller, box-wood mhaiova (Fig. 193). 

All three steps terminated above in mouldings, made separately and glued into rebates 
cut for them (Fig. 193). The mouldings are called by three different names: (1) 70 vdov 70 
yoyybdov. This occurs only in the fragment of specifications, VII, 1.7. It evidently desig- 
nates a strip of wood with a rounded profile, as the yoyyiAes Aidos of inscription IT designates 
a profiled stone (cf. above, p. 302). (2) “Ovvé. Referred to in VII, 1. 10, and in XI, col. n, 
ll. 16, 36, 40. This also must be a strip of wood with a simple profile, similar to that of the 


Figure 192. LADDER AND FRAMES IN EAST CEILING 


human finger-nail, from which the name is borrowed. This moulding was applied both to 
the xArwaxides and to the wAalova, as appears from the last two passages cited. (3) Kupariop. 
Moulding with the profile of the egg-and-dart, or leaf-and-tongue; see X, col. ut, 1. 34; 
XI, col. 1, 1. 48. In the latter passage these mouldings are called 74 kuyaria ra wixpa, Sug- 
gesting that they were applied to the smaller m\aiova. 

The passage in XI, col. m1, ll. 6-15, shows that the egg-and-dart or leaf-and-tongue 
pattern was carved in some of these mouldings after they had been glued in place; com- 
pare the use of the word xararoyé in II, col. 1, ll. 27, 52, and the comment, p. 316. The 
carving of the xuyarioy in a small rAaicvov cost twenty drachmae. As the rate of payment 
was five drachmae a foot, it follows that the small frames were one foot square. 

In addition to the évvé and xuudriov frequent mention is made of the dorpayados, or 
bead-and-reel. This was ‘‘dowelled on after it had been received turned in the lathe”’ 
(VIT, ll. 1, 5; XI, col. 1, ll. 30, 42; XI, col. 1, Il. 19, 24, 34, 47). In three passages (VII, 
1.5; XI, col. 1, ll. 19, 24) the astragalus is stated to be dowelled to a kA waxis. Since there 
is no clear evidence of its use elsewhere, it is probably to be assigned to the soffits of the 
kAtpaxldes (Fig. 193), where it actually appears on the marble ceilings of the exterior (PLATES 
XVIII, 8, XXIII, XXVI). 

The openings, one foot square, above the smaller rAaicva were filled by small slabs of 
wood called xadtipyara.' In XI, col. m1, 1. 36, the sawing up of a beam (c¢exicxos) into 

1 The lids of the coffers of the East Portico were also formed by separate slabs, in this case of stone; Ch. I, p. 30. 


NEA 
WS \ S 
SO 


Sy mS OO RAS“ SN \ 
SNC IW 
SS 


Qn SIVAAay 
QML WO 
NANG AS SSSQ 
. TOR WM AK SS 
MAAK SS \ . 
: S RA QQq 
SS 
S S 


S 


\ 
Rass 
SS 
QIAN SS 


\ WN AS 
. BDF>’{?>[—R#M#\$’ SS 


: 
Ss ~~ . \ \ 

SX \ WW QRQAGQ 
RNOOAA SSS RR WE x . \ 
. S . S& 

‘ ~* LOSS ~ _ WY 
SERRA SS 


OXY 


MGCGA 


as 
> y py 


tae eae, 
SLES: 


REPS 
WEISS 


Rr 


Laz 


Li 


OOIEN. 5 
WY 
ff 


SS 


ips 


ae 
Oe MOGs 


aN ms 
Bic ie Ii PPS 


a i 


g 


Pe 


Lo 


SSNS poses 
SO PRICE 
SS 


aS 


Le 


CZ 


t 
KA 
oi a, 


iz 


BGs JK ROK BS, 
LE 
Lie 

Sept Di De Ds 
<4] iy tYy 


Le, 


SS 


LLL 


Pha eS eA rk ok eh ke 


tj 
iy tii 
LLLE 


Li 
Le 
bes 


LE 


Ri dads 
id \] 
oer: = 04 ms pa 
BCG Se BG eS Or 
BS Ph Pa De Ti « Ks 


ROR Reh) 


Pg 
Voseee! 
i 


th 
COBY Couperin ie 

Lis 
YG: GORGES GV CARVE 


SS SIS Wa \ 
SR ASSES 


\ =e ESAS \ . NS 
RS SUSIE SE VLG SOD HPD VOW ODI Dy TIVES SVS IW DT CHV HISD PD GOH Oo Hy? OP 
\ . XG XX WW " Sess SN 
NNN KK Sy MX SSS SSS SEN a SSS 
SS RQ acer RN San—ce ae ; oS = Pa Stopes 
\ = SS: NSS H 


Si, 


\ SAN 8 eee a es 


ie 
Le 
Be 


LZ 


a 


We 

a wy 1p 
Le 
BLE 


ee 


YY 


“ 
“e 
Yb 4, 


—. 
LZ 
Wie 


ee 


Che, 
Yj 


i poe 
LAA D, 


SSSS NY 
SSS \ 
WSS \ 


Ly 
LE 
YG 


Vs 


Le 
Ly 
Ld 


iy 
Yi y a, 
Yo Y Uy 
YY 


Y 


yf 


(Z, 


YY 


\S 
\ 


A 
Toe 
NSS WSS 


Sa 
SHH 


2 


a= 
IT? 


£- 
& aan 
% * 
pS ; 
elas 


‘S 
+ 
Ss 


[ 367 ] 


FicureE 193. A COMPARTMENT OF THE CEILING OF THE EAST CELLA, RESTORED: ISOMETRIC 


368 THE ERECHTHEUM 


kadvmpara is recorded. Cf. also in the account of 408/7 B.c., XIII, col. 1, 1.37, kadtpupara eis 
rw opodev, and XVII, col. 11, ll. 3, 5, rév xadxédy rév eis TA KaNvMMaTA, Ter AkavOay eis TA KAAYP- 
uara, and the comment, p. 409. On the use of the term to designate part of the sheathing 
of a roof, see below. 

The turning in the lathe of rou@édvyes for the xadvupara is mentioned in XI, col. m1, 
1. 34. These were apparently ornaments fastened to the faces of the coffer-lids. The 
primary meaning of the word is ‘“‘bubble.” It is also used of the boss of a shield. This 
suggests that the roudddvyes were shallow bosses, probably with a moulded surface. They 
are to be distinguished from the elaborate floral ornaments which filled the coffers of the 
ceiling executed in 408/7 B.c.(ef. below, p. 409). 

The last item in the account of 409/8 B.c. relating to the ceiling (XI, col. m1, Il. 42-46) 
records the painting of fourteen coffer-lids upon the beams (or section of ceiling) above the 
image. The number suggests that each section was composed of two rows of seven coffers. 
The terms ypadets and ypadew show that the painting was done a tempera, or by some allied 
process, whereas the marble members of the Erechtheum, both without and within, were 
painted encaustically.! 

A restoration of a single compartment of the ceiling of the East Cella, showing the con- 
struction between two cedides with small frames one foot square is given in Figure 193, and 
a restoration of the entire ceiling is suggested in Figure 187. Here, however, rows of only 
four coffers, instead of seven, are shown in the central bay. The smaller frames are also 
considerably less than one foot square. 


XI, col. mm, ll. 15-31. Roof Construction. — The occurrences of the terms éopodia, 
ogexioxo. and iuavres, and of the phrase xepaydoocarte brép res dpodés ert 7h ved, Show that 
the passage deals with roof construction, and the last item, lines 42-46, makes it clear that 
the ceiling laid at this time, and consequently the roof above it (izép rés dpodés, 1. 26) belong 
over the image. The statements are not as detailed as in the inscriptions describing the 
roof of the Piraic Arsenal (/.G., II, 1054) and that of the gallery on the walls at Athens 
(I.G., II, 167 = II?, 463), and the construction was evidently simpler. The Arsenal had 
rafters (o@nkicxor) 10 dactyls thick, 3 palms wide, 5 palms apart, across which were laid 
cross-pieces (iuavres) 8 dactyls wide, 2 dactyls thick, 4 dactyls apart. The spaces between 
the iuwavres were covered by sheathing (xadtupyara) 1 dactyl thick, 6 dactyls wide. This 
woodwork was covered by a layer of clay in which the Corinthian tiles of terra-cotta were 
imbedded. On the roof of the gallery on the walls of Athens the tiles were also set in a 
layer of clay, which was supported by three series of timbers (doxides = rafters, éruBdjres or 
otpwrjpes = planks or beams laid across the former, and ivavres = slats laid crosswise on the 
planks; the interstices were filled with rushes; cf. A.J.A., XIV, 1910, pl. VI, pp. 305 ff.). 
The use of such a layer of clay was probably general in Greece on buildings which had 


1 Cf. eycaurqs, éyxatew, and the note on XIII, col. 1, 1. 22, p. 410; also Lattermann, B.C.H., XXXII, 1908, p. 286. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 369 


terra-cotta tiles. There is, however, no evidence of its use in connection with marble tiles. 
The roof of the Pinacotheca of the Propylaea had heavy marble tiles, which, as Mr. Henry 
D. Wood has shown, rested directly on the timbers.! 

In the present passage the only roof timbers mentioned are the o@nkicoxor and ivdvres. 
The xadipyara referred to in lines 35, 36 are not sheathing for the roof, but, as appears from 
lines 42-45, the coffer-lids of the ceiling. It is noteworthy also that in the report on the 
condition of the North Portico (II, col. 1, ll. 81 ff.) we read: rés éropodias odexioxos kal iudvras 
abéros. The failure to mention xadipuara there does not prove conclusively that such 
sheathing was not used. But in the passage under discussion, where the iudyres are accu- 
rately dscribed, and where the laying of rafters, cross-pieces, and tiles is noted, the omission 
of the xa\tpyara shows plainly that the tiles rested directly on the iuayres. 

The tiles of the main building have been identified by G. P. Stevens, who restores a 
rafter under the joints between each pair of tiles, and eight rows of tiles from ridge to eaves.” 
There would thus be fifteen rows of rafters over the eastern part of the temple, as shown in 
the restored section looking North (Phare XV). In IX, Il. 12 ff., the preparation of 
fourteen rows of rafters is probably recorded. It is not easy to find an arrangement of 
iuavtes Which would account exactly for those mentioned in XI, col. 11, ll. 16-24, 388 in 
number. If a row of ivav7es is placed under each of the longitudinal joints between tiles 
(eight on each slope of the roof), the total number required for this part of the building is 
only 240 if there were fifteen rafters, 224 if there were fourteen. With two iyavtes to each 
row of tiles, these numbers would be doubled and become too large. It is possible, however, 
that the section of roof laid in this prytany was only that above the East Cella, where the 
newly finished ceiling required immediate protection from the weather. The number of 
transverse rows of tiles would thus be reduced to twelve, and with thirty-two iwavres in each 
row, the total number of iuavres would be 384, or four less than the number recorded in the 
inscription. The lower face of the pan tile has what may be a bearing surface at each end, 
indicating that perhaps there were two iyvavres for each tile. The iuavres must have been 
laid in cuttings in the top surface of the rafters, as indicated in Figure 189. 

The rafters and iudvres were laid by three men, Gerys, Mikion, and Kroisos, working 
six, three, and five days respectively. It is perhaps noteworthy that the aggregate number of 
days, fourteen, coincides with the number of rows of rafters prepared in an earlier prytany, 
if the interpretation of IX, ll. 12 ff., is correct. 

For laying the tiles twenty-four drachmae were paid to Kteson of Lakiadai. This seems 
at first sight a low price. But the suggestion of Frickenhaus (A.J.A., X, 1906, p. 15, note 1) 
that these tiles constituted a temporary roofing is improbable, for the timbers, as we have 
just seen, were not adapted to support terra-cotta tiles, and marble tiles would surely have 
been laid once for all. The wording of this item does not make it certain that the roofing of 


1 In a paper read before the American School at Athens in 1907, but not yet published. 
2 On the restoration of the roof of the main building, see also Ch. I, pp. 76-80; Puates XVI, XVII, XVIII. 


370 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the East Cella was completed during this prytany. But a computation of the number of tiles 
required for this section of the roof shows that the price.is not so inadequate after all. 
Excluding the sima, the laying of which may well have been recorded under stone-work in 
this or an earlier prytany, the tiles over the East Cella would be as follows: 


16 & 12 pan tiles: 7. Sp ee, x ee 192 
16 12 cover tiles ni Ae ee ee 192 
12 ridge. tiles), . eta et ets Bee Oe 12 
12.ridge cover tiles*(.4". 4) Aa tee ee 12 
2° 12. antefixes ...5 suiagis sadhnswso bo. ke ere tae e eee 24 

Total 0.5.0 fg Ree RR Sis are ee 432 


If the pay was divided between Kteson and one assistant the number of days’ work 
would be twelve. This would mean the laying of thirty-six tiles a day by two men, which 
seems not unreasonable. 


XI, col. 1, ll. 31-84. This passage is important for the restoration of the west wall 
in its original state, before the Roman repairs.! It shows that four of the intercolumniations 
were closed by grilles. That the fifth intercolumniation, for which no grille is here recorded, 
was the southernmost may be inferred from the absence of any trace of such a grille on the 
southwest anta (p. 66). If the restoration of the niche proposed by L. B. Holland (p. 363) 
be accepted, the grille which shut off the triangular niche from the interior of the building 
was of different dimensions from the other four, and for this reason may not have been 
included in the same contract. That the material of the four grilles mentioned was wood 
may be inferred from the name of the workman: Komon was one of the carpenters em- 
ployed in planing indyres (1.19). The price, ten drachmae for each grille, seems low, unless 
it is merely the payment for fitting in place grilles previously made. : 


Part III. Tur Accounts or 408/7 B.c. 


Numbers Nat. Mus. Dinsmoor J.-M. Other publications 

Xt aa 6667 K 28a 1.G., 1, 3244; I2, 374 

eGR ee 6667 a N 28d 1.G., I, 324d; I2, 374 

X Verde meee 66677 P oe Ath. Mitt., XXVI, 1901, p. 223; I2, 374 
XY Le eee 6667 8 L 28b I.G., I, 3246; P?, 374 

OVS ee 6667 6 M 28¢ 324c; T°, 374 

DV LIers oe 6667 O 28 e 324e; T?, 374 

xi oe 6667 ¢ Q ae Ath. Mitt., XXVI, 1901, p. 224; 2, 374 
9. OER Wane oN 6714 R 28f I.G., 1, Suppl. 321, 4:(p. 151) re 
al eae re 6713 U 27 G I.G., I, Suppl. 331¢ (p. 39); [?, 374 
BOUL Yvan 6669 T ee 1.G., I, 326; I2, 374 

CX Te ee 6666 S 29 1.G., I, 328; I2, 374 

veranire ate 8879 WwW 1.G., Il, 5, 4881- Ieee 

SOV ecien 8711la V 1.G., I, 3319; 1 874 


‘ On the original construction of the upper part of the West Fagade, see Ch. I, pp. 60-66. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 371 


Unlike the earlier inscriptions, the accounts of 408/7 B.c. were inscribed stoichedon on 
slabs only 10 cm. thick, set up in tiers against a wall. On the fragments XX—XXV, all 
belonging probably to the tenth prytany, the stoichedon arrangement is neglected; but the 
style of the letters and the spacing of the lines forbid the assigning of any of these fragments 
to the accounts of 409/8 B.c., as has been proposed by some of the earlier commentators. 
In the first volume of the Corpus Kirchhoff identified XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII as 
belonging to the accounts of 408/7 B.c. And in publishing XX (J.G., I, Suppl. 321, 4, p. 
151) he suggested that it also belonged to this year. In Ath. Mitt., XXVI, 1901, pp. 223 ff., 
Kolbe published the important new fragment, XV, giving the name of the archon, Eukte- 
mon, and the insignificant fragment, XIX. Finally, Dinsmoor (A./.A., XVII, 1913, p. 255) 
assigned XXI-XXV to the tenth prytany of 408/7 B.c. 

It is unnecessary to review the attempts made prior to Kolbe’s article to date the inscrip- 
tion and determine the order of the fragments.! 

Of the thirteen fragments now assigned to the account, only five (XIIJI—XVII) are of 
importance by reason of their contents. And it has proved possible to determine almost 
certainly their original arrangement, as indicated in the accompanying diagram, Figure 194. 
The largest slab, XVII, has its original top, bottom, and right edges preserved. Its height 
is 0.95 m.; it contains eighty-seven lines of writing in each column, filling the whole of the 
surface. The account of the eighth prytany (Pandionis) begins at line 25 of the first column; 
that of the ninth prytany (Aegeis) at line 23 of the second. Since the top of column 11, 
recording the making of models for rosettes, does not directly follow the bottom of column 1, 
which deals with stone-work, it is obvious that the slabs of the inscription must have been 
set up in at least two tiers. And the fragments XV and XVI, containing the heading of the 
accounts inscribed in larger letters in the vacant space 12 cm. high at the top, evidently 
belong to an upper tier. Their top surfaces are roughly tooled, whereas the top of XVII 
is worked as a surface of contact, and has a dowel hole in it to the right of the centre. 

The slab XIII is 0.74 m. high, and has its left edge preserved; its top has been re- 
worked. Its first column has sixty-seven lines; the- account of the seventh prytany 
(Leontis) begins at line 62. Since the account of the eighth prytany occupied exactly one 
column, and that of the ninth prytany (as will appear below) less than one, it is reasonable 
to assume that the account of the seventh prytany filled one or at most two columns. 

1 Before the discovery of No. XV the dating depended chiefly on a chronological calculation. The salaries of 
the architect and under-secretary in the sixth and eighth prytanies (XIII, col. 1, 1. 56; XVII, col. u, 1. 9) showed, 
as Rangabé observed (Ant. hellén., p. 67), that the inscription belonged to an ordinary, not an intercalary year. But 
which of the two years was ordinary was a matter of dispute. According to Usener, Rh. Mus., XXXIV, p. 389, it was 
409/8 n.c., according to Kirchhoff, J.c., Unger, Zeitrechnung?, p. 752, and Keil, Hermes, XXIX, 1894, p. 358, it was 
408/7 s.c. The correctness of the calculations of Kirchhoff, Unger, and Keil was confirmed by Ferguson, who 
obtained the date 408/7 s.c. from the order of the prytanizing tribes (The Athenian Secretaries, p. 27), and by 
Kolbe’s publication of the fragment, XV, with the name of the archon. 

As regards the order of the fragments, Kolbe showed that Kirchhoff, with his customary acumen, had come 


nearer to the correct solution than Robert (Hermes, XXV, 1890, pp. 439 ff.), who was followed by Michaelis, J.-M., 
App. Ep., p. 105. In I.G., 2, Dinsmoor’s earlier (1913) arrangement of the fragments is followed. 


372 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The slab XIII would thus be placed to the left of XVII, as was proposed by Kolbe, or above 
it in such a way that its second column would be continued by the first column of XVII. 
This latter position, adopted by Dinsmoor in his article published in 19138, has now been 
rejected by him in favor of Kolbe’s arrangement (A.J.A., XXV, 1921, p. 245, fig. 2). His 


Ficure 194. DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF INSCRIPTIONS XIII-KX 


earlier theory was based partly on his just observation that the slab XVII must originally 
have contained more than two columns of writing, because of the later cutting of its left 
edge. He assumed that there were three columns. It now seems certain, however, that 
the slabs were four columns wide; and the only possible position for XIII is where Dins- 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 373 


moor places it, immediately to the left of XVII, as a part of the same slab, occupying the 
middle of three tiers. It cannot have belonged to the upper tier, for the fragment XV must 
be placed above its second column. Nor can it be assigned to a lower tier, for the fragment 
XIV certainly belongs below it, and must be from a separate slab. 

Fragments XV and XVI obviously belong together. The connection of XIV with 
them, proposed by Kolbe, has rightly been followed by Dinsmoor in both of his reconstruc- 
tions of the accounts. The contents of the first column of XIV, moreover, prove conclu- 
sively. that it has been correctly placed by Kolbe below XIII, for, as will be shown in the 
commentary, p. 412, the work on the columns of the East Portico recorded in it must have 
been done in the seventh prytany. 

All five fragments, XITI—-XVII, thus belong to one series of slabs arranged in three tiers, 
and probably containing four columns of writing. The bottom of the first column is pre- 
served on XIV, the top of the second column on XV; the text is, as a matter of fact, con- 
tinuous. Additional confirmation is furnished by the fact that the second column of XIV 
deals with the reliefs of the frieze, which is also the subject of the first column of XVI. 
The list of payments for a&yadyaroroixdv in the seventh prytany ends at line 23 of the first 
column of XVII. 

It is probable that two series of slabs are to be restored to the left, containing the ac- 
counts of the first five, and a part of the sixth prytany, and one series to the right, con- 
taining the accounts of the tenth prytany, and perhaps those of the following years. The 
whole inscription would thus have sixteen columns of writing, the fragments XIII-XVII 
containing portions of columns 9-12. 

One of the remaining small fragments of the account (XX) has been plausibly assigned 
by Dinsmoor to columns 13 and 14. This is from the top of a slab, and has the cutting for 
a dowel. It contains parts of two columns, the first giving the heading of the tenth prytany 
(Erechtheis). The letters are not arranged stovchedon. 

Another small fragment (XVIII) has been placed by Dinsmoor in column 8 (Fig. 194). 
It is from the right edge of a slab; and the lower portion of its surface is uninscribed. This 
suggests that the end of the account of a prytany (perhaps the fifth) came near a joint be- 
tween two tiers, and that the scribe began the account of the next prytany on the lower 
tier. The account of the sixth prytany would thus fill about one column and a half. It 
is also possible to place XVIII at the bottom of the middle tier, reducing the space to nearly 
one column. 

The fragment XIX is carefully inscribed stotchedon, and therefore belongs to a time 
earlier than the tenth prytany. In Figure 194 it has been given the position assigned to it 
by Dinsmoor, i.e., in the upper third of column 13. 

The fragments XXI-—XXV are not inscribed stovchedon, as Dinsmoor has noted, and 
presumably belong to the tenth prytany. On XXI and XXIII the lines are normally 
spaced. But on XXII, which is from the bottom of a slab, the spacing is irregular and 


374 THE ERECHTHEUM 


becomes greater towards the bottom. This carelessness in spacing becomes even more 
marked on fragments XXIV and XXV. Dinsmoor places XXI in column 13 below XX, 
and XXII at the very bottom of this same column. Numbers XXIII-XXV are assigned by 
him to the lower third of column 14 (cf. A.J.A., XXV, 1921, p. 246, fig. 2). The exact 
location of these fragments is not important, since little or no information can be gleaned 


from their contents. 


In order to understand the course of the building operations during the sixth to ninth 
prytanies of this year, it is essential to fix the relative positions of XITI-XVII as accurately 
as possible. It therefore becomes necessary to consider a criticism of the arrangement 
here adopted, which has recently been published by P. de La Coste-Messeliére in B.C.H., 
XLVIII, 1924, pp. 323 ff! This is directed against Dinsmoor’s revised restoration of the 
whole inscription, as shown in A.J .A., XXV, 1921, p. 246, fig. 2. Dinsmoor assumed that 
the three tiers of slabs were all of the same height (approximately 0.95 m.), with 76 lines 
of writing on the upper tier, and 87 on each of the lower tiers, 250 lines in all. De La Coste- 
Messeliére rightly objects that this allows far too much space for inscribing the accounts of 
the seventh and eighth prytanies. He therefore assumes only two tiers of slabs, with 
163 lines in each column, and separates XIV, XV, XVI from XIII, XVII, assigning the 
former group to the fourth to sixth prytanies. But, as has been stated above, this arrange- 
ment is impossible, if the first column of XIV has been correctly interpreted as recording 
work on the east columns done in the seventh prytany. His objection is removed, how- 
ever, if we adopt Kolbe’s arrangement, in which the upper and lower tiers are assumed to 
have been less high than the central tier. In Figure 194 these two tiers are each given half 
the height of the central one, with the result that each column would contain 163 instead 
of 250 lines. 


XIII. Marble slab, 0.74 m. high, 0.35 m. wide, 0.10 m. thick, broken in two. The back is 
roughly dressed. The original left edge is preserved, and shows dressing with the toothed 
chisel; the top is re-worked. Found in excavations near the Pinacotheca of the Propylaea 
in 1836 (Ross, Kunsiblatt, 1836, No. 76, p. 314). In the National Museum. 

Pittakis, ’E¢. ’Apx., 10. Rangabé, Ant. hellén., 56. Stephani, Annali, XV, 1843, p. 318, 
No. I, pl. L. Thiersch, Hrechtheum, I, pp. 121 ff., pl. I. J.G., I, 324a; 1,2 374. Choisy, 
Etudes, p. 117. J.-M., App. Ep., 28a. Michel, Recueil, 572. Roberts-Gardner, Greek 
Epigraphy, U1, 118. Washburn, A./.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new readings). Dinsmoor, K. 

Facsimile, PLhatrm X LIX. 

Variant Readings. Col. I. L. 1... -Ol' Pittakis. Ol. - Rangabé, Stephani. O11. Kirch- 
hoff. +!-O-Y.: Washburn. L. 24 :IIII:- Pittakis, Rangabé. 


Col. II. L. 20 AFF Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. L. 21 PFFIII: Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. 
L. 24 PIOI-| Pittakis. TIOH Rangabé, Stephani. 


‘ It has not been possible to take full account of this article. Two emendations of the text of XVI, col. 1 (7é 
yuvatke), have been adopted. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 375 


XIV. Fragment of marble, 0.17 m. high, 0.24 m. wide, 0.095 m. thick, broken at the 
two sides and the top. The bottom surface, which is original, is smooth except for a shallow 
groove 0.077 m. from the front. Found with XIII. In the National Museum. 

Pittakis, /. c., 11, 2036. Rangabé, I. c., 58. Stephani, J. c., No. III. Thiersch, 1. c. 
I.G., 1, 324d; 1°, 374. Choisy, I. c., p. 127. J.-M., App. Ep., 28d. Washburn, l. c. Dins- 
moor, N. De La Coste-Messeliére, B.C.H., XLVIII, 1924, p. 330. 

Facsimile, Pharr XLIX. 


Variant Readings. Col. I. L. 3 ESIN Pittakis, 2036. L.6 /MO Pitt. L.9 EOEY Pitt. L. 13 
SKAM Pitt. Col. UW. L. 9 1 De La Coste-Messeliére. L. 10 XC Id. L. 12. ALLe Id. 


XV. Fragment of marble, 0.17 m. high, 0.17 m. wide, 0.098 m. thick. The back is 
roughly dressed. The original top surface is preserved and is unsmoothed. The first line 
of the text is 0.12 m. from the top of the stone. Found in 1901 in the course of work on 
the north wall of the Acropolis. In the National Museum. 

Kolbe, Ath. Mitt., XX VI, 1901, pp. 223 ff. I.G., I?, 374. Dinsmoor, P. 

Facsimile, Pharm XLIX. 


Variant Reading. L.3 "OTOR Kolbe. 


XVI. Fragment of marble, 0.22 m. high, 0.85 m. wide, 0.098 m. thick. The back is 
roughly dressed. The top surface is left rough like that of No. XV. The first line of the 
text is 0.12 m. from the top of the stone. Found in 1839 in excavations southeast of the 
Erechtheum (Ross, Kunstblatt, 1840, No. 18, p. 72). In the National Museum. 

Pittakis, 1. c., 172, 2026. Rangabé, I. c., 59. Stephani, J. c., No. IV. JI.G., 1, 3246; 2, 
374. Choisy, l.c., pp. 121, 130. J.-M., App. Ep., 28b. Washburn, /.c. Dinsmoor, L. De 
La Coste-Messeliére, B.C.H., XLVIII, 1924, p. 329. 

Facsimile, Pharm X LIX. 

Variant Readings. Col. I. L. 1 NEAN SKON Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. \~A-.-KON 
Kirchhoff. L.2 dov e..ara Pittakis, 172. O0-A-..OTA Rangabé, Stephani. OCAA.OTA Pittakis, 
2026. L. 3 HOIKON Rangabé, Pittakis, Stephani. L. 5 AAAOAN Rangabé, Pittakis, Stephani. 
A/AOAN Kirchhoff. L. 6 OIKON Rangabé, Stephani. HOIKON Pittakis, Kirchhoff. L. 7 AX<El 
Rangabé, Stephani. OAXSEI Pittakis. AV<"! Kirchhoff. 

Col. II. L.1 AMENOI AN Rangabé, Stephani. AMENOI-.ANP\ Pittakis. AME..--ANIP 
Kirchhoff. L. 2 TEN Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. TEN Kirchhoff. L.3 AIN ES Pittakis. AIND=— 
Kirchhoff. L.4 NTAMA Rangabé, Stephani. NTAMAN Pittakis. NTAMAD Kirchhoff. L.5 KONTA 
Rangabé, Stephani. KONTA® Pittakis. KONTIA Kirchhoff. L. 8 AYOIN..A4 Kirchhoff. L.9 
KALY Rangabé, Pittakis, Stephani. 


XVII. Marble slab, 0.95 m. high, 0.44 m. wide, 0.10 m. thick, broken into sixteen pieces. 
Original top, bottom and right edge preserved. The back is roughly dressed, the top and 
bottom perfectly smoothed, and the right edge dressed with the toothed chisel. In the 
top, 0.145 m. from the right edge and 0.04 m. from the front there is a dowel hole 0.065 m. 
wide, 0.07 m. deep. In the bottom the left edge of a similar dowel cutting 0.06 m. deep is 


376 THE ERECHTHEUM 


preserved at a point 0.202 m. from the right edge of the stone. According to letters of 
Ross, dated January 28 and May 7, 1836 (Kunsiblatt, 1836, Nos. 39, 60, pp. 165, 249) a 
considerable number of fragments were found early in that year in front of the Propylaea; 
the rest may have been found in October of the same year along with the lower part of 
XIII and XIV, as stated by Pittakis, "Ed. ’Apx., 9-11, who is certainly incorrect in saying 
that XIII, XIV, and XVII were found on the same day. In the National Museum. 
Ross, Kunsiblatt, 18386, Nos. 39, 40, pp. 165-167, 170-172 (col. 1, ll. 1-29); No. 60, pp. 
249, 250 (col. 1, ll. 12-21, 34-45). Pittakis, J. c., 9. Rangabé, /. c., 57. Stephani, l. c., 
No. II. Thiersch, J. c. I.G., I, 324c; I?, 374. Choisy, l.c., pp. 121 ff. J.-M., App. Ep., 28c. 
Michel, Recueil, 573. Roberts-Gardner, J. c., 118. Washburn, /. c. Dinsmoor, M. 
Facsimile, Phare XLIX. 


Variant Readings. Col. I. L.11-! Pittakis, Rangabé, Kirchhoff. AA Ross. L. 23 OEO Ross. 
L. 34 FLIO Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. L. 44 ViO Pittakis, Rangabé. L. 45 ON3SI Kirchhoff. 
L. 46 AF. III| Pittakis, Rangabé. AF. .II| Stephani, Kirchhoff. L. 64 TPO ~=O Pittakis, Rangabé, 
Kirchhoff. [PO.=O Stephani. L. 87 XON Pittakis. KON Rangabé, Stephani, Kirchhoff. 

Col. II. L. 27 HHHY Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. L. 77 ONP Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. 


XVIII. Fragment, 0.27 m. high, 0.115 m. wide, 0.10 m. thick. Back roughly dressed. 
Right edge dressed with the toothed chisel. At the bottom a space at least 0.10 m. high 
uninscribed. In the National Museum. 

Rangabé, l. c., 290. Pittakis, 1. c., 2260. J.G., I, 324e; I?, 374. J.-M., App. Ep., 28¢. 
Washburn, A.J.A., X, 1906, pl. I (new readings). Dinsmoor, O. De La Coste-Messeliére, 
B.C.H., XLVIII, 1924, p. 330. 

Facsimile, Fig. 195. 


Variant Readings. L. 2 LEY Pittakis. ~EY Kirchhoff. L. 6 IANTI Pittakis. =ANTIT De La 
Coste-Messeliére. L.70.T.X Id. L. 140M - - Id. 


XIX. Fragment of marble, broken on all sides, 0.19 m. high, 0.095 m. wide, 0.05 m. thick. 
In the National Museum. 

Kolbe, Ath. Miti., XXVI, 1901, p. 224. JI.G., I?, 374. Dinsmoor, Q. De La Coste- 
Messeliére, B.C.H., XLVIII, 1924, p. 330. 

Facsimile, Fig. 196. 


XX. Fragment of marble, broken on three sides, top preserved, 0.10 m. high, 0.163 m. 
wide, 0.055 m. thick (original back not preserved). In the top, which is dressed smooth, 
a dowel hole at least 0.07 m. wide, 0.035 m. from the front. The letters, 0.008 m. high, 
begin 0.025 m. from the top. Found near the Erechtheum. In the National Museum. 

Lolling, Sitzb. Berl. Akad., 1887, p. 1186, No. 3. I.G., I, Suppl. 321, 4 (p. 151); T?, 374. 
J.-M., App. E'p., 28 f. Dinsmoor, R. 

Facsimile, Fig. 197. 

Variant Reading. Col. I. L. 2 <:L Lolling. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 377 


| XXJ. Fragment of marble, 0.123 m. high, 0.075 m. wide, 0.092 m. thick, broken on all 
sides, back dressed smooth. Letters 0.008 m. high. Found on the south slope of the Acrop- 
olis. In the National Museum. 


I.G., I, Suppl. 331c (p. 39); I?, 374. J.-M., App. Ep., 27a. Dinsmoor, U. 
Facsimile, Fig. 198. 


\EYKOTE | 
KAZEXsk 


FicureE 196. INSCRIPTION XIX 


Figure 195. INSCRIPTION XVIII 


Figure 197. INSCRIPTION XxX Figure 198. INSCRIPTION XXI 


XXII. Fragment of marble, broken on three sides, bottom and back dressed smooth, 
0.15 m. high, 0.11 m. wide, 0.092 m. thick. Seen by Schoene near the Erechtheum. In 
the National Museum. 

Schoene, Hermes, IV, 1869, p. 54, No. II, pl. after p. 36. J.G., I, 326; I’, 374. Dins- 
moor, T. 

Facsimile, Fig. 199. 


378 THE ERECHTHEUM 


aN) 
OZESr 


PS ee eS el ers 
\GLEE rie 
‘OT OF OLET 

TLOEOU St NeieE 

Np oines Eh 

POl “<Q 7 Na 

ara on | 


10 
Figure 199. INSCRIPTION XXII Fiaure 200. INSCRIPTION XXIII 


XXIII. Fragment of marble, broken on all sides, 0.11 m. high, 0.14 m. wide, 0.088 m. 
thick (original back not preserved). Letters 0.007 to 0.009 m. high. In the National 
Museum. 

Rangabé, l.c., 60. Pittakis, L’ancienne Athénes, p.435. ‘Ed.’ Apx., 2025. Stephani, /. c., 
No. V, pl. L. J.G., I, 323; I?, 374. J.-M., App. Ep., 29. Dinsmoor, 8. 

Facsimile, Fig. 200. 


Variant Readings. A portion of the surface has been broken off since the stone was found. 


Kirchhoff gives the following text based on copies made by Von Velsen before, and by Koehler after 
the injury. 


iG 

<r Asal 
< ITFITIIAIOK L 
JZAIIMIKONPFI 


IFFE ANTI®ANE®S 

ONrP PAX31 A&, 
OLLYAA PI3T 
OFZ08'INICIAS 
TPATONA 


Mel 


XV, XVI, Heapine 


— — — ént| E[b]x[réuovos a&pxov|ros 
*"Apx |tréxr[ov 
*Apx |idoxols 
"Aypvu|Aede[v. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 379 


L. 1 ELO Pittakis, Rangabé, Stephani. L.41L Velsen. [t the other editors. L. 5 tHE Rangabé, 
Stephani. IF FFF Pittakis. L.6 ON:[P Rangabé, Pittakis, Stephani. L. 8 :IIIC Rangabé, Pittakis, 
Stephani. L. 10 KIONI Rangabé, Pittakis, Stephani. 


Figure 201. INSCRIPTION XXIV Figure 202. INSCRIPTION XXV 


XXIV. Fragment of marble, broken on all sides and at the back, 0.185 m. high, 0.07 m. 
wide, 0.035 m. thick. In the National Museum. 

I.G., Il, 5, 4831; I?, 374. Dinsmoor, W. Cf. Bannier, Berl. phil. W., 1911, p. 854. 

Facsimile, Fig. 201. 


XXYV. Fragment of marble, broken on all sides and at the back, 0.225 m. high, 0.088 m. 
wide, 0.04 m. thick. From the finds near the Tholos. In the National Museum. 

I.G., I, 381g; I’, 374. Dinsmoor, V. 

Facsimile, Fig. 202. 


XV, XVI, Heapine 


In the archonship of Euktemon 
Architect: 
Archilochos 
of Agryle. 


380 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


XIII, col. 1 


One O.....-.. 0S AaPOrToL- 
y| dvoty avdpoty, Zooia ’AXoz- 
€kéot olKoy +: Livdpove 2+: rev 
dpopev KaTioTaou, Tey KapT- 
vrev : gedtba els CSpay Kal Ta- 

s d\XNas éerayayoow eis édpa- 

v hexaorev, Mavis év KodXur- 
6u oiKovTe :k: Kpotoou év ZKap- 
Bovidév hovxoyte i+: ’Avdpéar 

éu MeNirer horxoyre :+: Ipéro- 
vri ’Aypudéoe oikovte :+: Médo- 
u éu MeAire horxovre 2+: ’AmoA- 
doddpor éu MeXiter houkévt- 

utk: Auxptouara Kabedcow Ta 
ao TOV KLOvoy TOV hev T& Tp- 
oordce, héxs avdpacw, Tevx- 
pos év Kvéabevaior horkéy ‘Ff, 
Képdov ’Axavomeifos, : Kpoto- 
os &v DKapyBovid6v : horxéy ‘+: II- 
perov ’AypuXéat houxéy :+: Ked- 
taddopos iF: Drodias iF: Auxpud- 
gact Tots evkautats hex 76 h- 
elvrés hurd rév hopodéev, Man- 
dt é€v Klodduréu houxéyte tF INI A- 
exavas(?)] dvadopécacw Ipézro- 
vrei ’Alypudéor horxévre 2+: Meé6- 
ole éu MeAiree hoxéyre 2+: Ked- 
a.|Aavov huropyots :FAAAFEFK 
IJIIC: apioras Kad’ éuépay hep- 
yafouevots, dvoty avdpotv, h- 
exkaldexa heuepov, dpaxpes 

Tés heuépas hexaores, hexat- 
é]por, Pavdior év Koddvréu ho- 
ukovTe Kal ouvepyor, AAAFF: II- 
plorats Ka’ éuépav hepyato- 
pevows, TpliTes dodeKeuepo, K- 
advppara eis tev hopodér, he- 


m7a hewepov, Spaxurny THs hep- 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 
XIII, col. 1 


recelving — — — — — — — - — : 

to Sosias, living in Alopeke, 

to Sindron, 

For laying the ceiling, 

for placing the bent beam in its bed 
and each of the other beams in its bed, 
to Manis, living in Kollytos, 

to Kroisos, living in Skambonidai, 

to Andreas, living in Melite, 

to Prepon, living in Agryle, 

to Medos, living in Melite, 

to Apollodoros, living in Melite, 

For taking down the scaffolding from the 
columns in the Porch, to six men: 

to Teukros, living in Kydathenaion, 

to Kerdon, son of Axiopeithes, 

to Kroisos, living in Skambonidai, 

to Prepon, living in Agryle, 

to Kephisodoros, 

to Spodias, 

For putting up a scaffolding for the painters 


in encaustic, in the interior, beneath the ceiling, 


to Manis, living in Kollytos, 
For carrying up paint-pots (?), 
to Prepon, living in Agryle, 

to Medos, living in Melite, 

Sum total of payments 

to laborers, 

To sawyers working by the day, 
two men working sixteen days, 
at a drachma, a day each, 

to Rhadios, living in Kollytos, 
and his assistant, 

To sawyers working by the day, 
in the third period of twelve days, 
for sawing coffer-lids 

for the ceiling, seven days, 


1 dr. 
1 dr. 


Badr: 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 


1 dr. 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 
iar 
1 dr. 
1 dr. 


ores op, 


1 dr. 
1 dr. 


84 dr., 43 


oo Or. 


2 


ob. 


381 


382 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


épas hexaates, dvotv avdpot- 

v, Pavdtor é€v KodXvurét houks- 

yu Kal ovvepyou :AFEFF: xepa- 
Natoy mplarats, AAAAT ET: hevk- 
aurats, TO Kumatiov hevkéaly- 

tu TO het rét hemiorvuAlole T- 

6 hevrds, wevroBodov To[y 76- 

da héxacrov, pcbores Aclovu- 
a|ddopos éu Metre horx[dv, h- 
evyyuerés Hepaxdetdes ’O[€0e- 

vy :AAA?: Kepadacov hevxavt[ats 
AAA: xpvaoxdos, xaAxXas x[pve- 
dcavTt, TpooaTébopuev 70 [hod- 
eviouevoy Tés TpoTepas [mpu- 
ravelas, Tés Howetdos, =[ucb- 

go éu MeAtrer hoxéyr[e ... 
Kepaddatoy xpvaoxoos ?[... U- 
wcOol. apxitéxtove ’Apx|tdox- 

ou “Aypudebev :AAATEE: hu[royp- 
apparel Ivpyiove :AAAIII [II Ked- 
adavoy wic86 : FAPEFIIINI: ob[uara- 


vTos dvadouatos Kepadaltov, 
XFHHPAAAAITIIC. 


"Ext rés Aeovrisos heB[ddpues 
mpuTavevoces 3+: Neupa [zapa T- 
aay Tes 0€6, tlaloa ’Aplecatyp- 

o| ’AypvAéev [kai cvvapydrTo- 

y\, XXX XH HE eee havanopu- 


XIV; cols 1,.0V 


Per ieee AuBopytKo: pa-| 
[Bddceos Tév Kidvov Tév zpos] 

[éo, Tov kata Tov Boudv’ Tov rpo-| 

[s 76 Bows rés Ardves, Adoaaos] 
[’ANomexefev :A: Didov Hepxred-| 

[s :A: Ilappévov Aadaco :A: Kapior] 
[Aadcao :A: Hixapos :A: rév hexou-| 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


at a drachma a day, to two men, 

to Rhadios, living in Kollytos, 

and his assistant, 

Sum total of payments to sawyers, 

To painters in encaustic, 

for painting the cymatium on the 
inner epistyle, at five obols a foot, 
contractor, Dionysodoros living in Melite, 
surety, Herakleides of Oa, 

Sum total of payments 

to painters in encaustic, 

To gilders, for gilding rosettes, 

we gave also the sum due 

in the former prytany, 

that of Oineis, 

to Sisyphos, living in Melite, 

Sum total of payments to gilders, 
Salaries: 

to the architect, Archilochos of Agryle, 
to the under-secretary, Pyrgion, 

Sum total of salaries, 

Sum total of 

expenditures, 

In the seventh prytany, 

that of the tribe Leontis, 

received from the treasurers of the goddess, 
from Aresaichmos of Agryle 

and his colleagues, 

Expenditures: — — - — — =— = 


XIV, col. 1, XV 


14 dr. 
46 dr. 


30 dr. 


30 dr. 


— dr. 
— dr. 


37 dr. 
30 dr., 5 ob. 
67 dr., 5 ob. 


1790 dr., 34 ob. 


4302 dr., 1 ob. 


SSS SSS eS Si For stonework, 


for channelling the columns at the 
east end, those opposite the altar; 
the one next to the altar of Dione (I), 


Laossos of Alopeke, 10 dr. Philon of Erchia, 10 dr. 


Parmenon, son of Lagssos, 10 dr. 


Karion, son of Laossos, 10 dr. Hikaros, 10 dr. 


383 


384 


XIV, col. 1, 


EVs 


1 


10 


10 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


[evov hexoés, Badaxpos Iavav-] 

[reds :A: BuAdarparos Iaane-| 

[ds :A: OapyéAvos Padaxpo :A: Bud-] 
[dpyos Baddxpo :A: Tépus Badax-] 
[po :A: rov hexduevov hexoes, Ha-] 
[wewviddes év Koider horxdr, | 

[A: Aioxives :A: Avoavias ‘A: Zope] 
[ves Hape[uviddo :A: Tipoxpare- 

s 1A: rov hexo|uevov helxoes, Dip- 
tas “ANomex]éou houxdv, [PFFI. K- 
épdov, PEFI]. Zivdpov Dipilo, Tr 
Fl. Doxdés] "Axovoretbos :T FFI. 
Lavviov Lu]u(i)o :PEEI. Hemuyéve- 
s Diyuto, PE|EI. Zdcavdpos, FFF. 7- 
ov héxrov| Kiova ad 76 Bos T- 

és Avove|s, Oevyévns Ietpare- 

vs, PEEFI|I. Keduooyéves Teupa- 
veds, TEJE FI. Tedxpos év Kvda- 
evator| oixov :PEFEFII. Keduood- 
opos év = |kapBovid6v horksr, 

PEEEII. Nexloorparos :‘PFEFII. Oe- 
vyeiro|y Tlepareds, [PFEFII... 

oe epee ] rév xara [Tov Bouo- 


YT OV Ro see oe | 76 Blows rés A- 


XIII, col. 1 
P. réxrlove xa’ heuépar hepya- 
Copevot fl sah ee ee ,T 
pire|s| dode[Keuepo, wévre dBo- 
dos tl és] heulépas hexdores he- 
m7a he[plepa[v, Evawérou(?) ’AXoz- 
exeoe hork[dvre, PII. = Tots Kad- 
bupace : me[puxo\Aéoavte ha 7- 
poceutob[ocaper Svoty dpax- 
patv héxalorov 76 horator, te- 
trapov holratov, Mario. hev K- 


oAAuTou hlouévrt, PERF. 76 KU- 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 385 


The next column (II), 
Phalakros of Paiania, 10 dr. Philostratos of Paiania, 10 dr. 
Thargelios, son of Phalakros, 10 dr. 
Philourgos, son of Phalakros, 10 dr. Gerys, son of Phalakros, 10 dr. 
The next column (III), 
Ameiniades living in Koile, 10 dr. Aischines, 10 dr. 
Lysanias, 10 dr. Somenes, son of Ameiniades, 10 dr.] 
XIV, col.1, 1  Timokrates, 10 dr. 
The next column (IV), 
Simias living in Alopeke, 7 dr. 1 ob. 
Kerdon, 7 dr. 1 ob. Sindron, son of Simias, 7 dr. 1 ob. 
5  Sokles, son of Axiopeithes, 7 dr. 1 ob. 
Sannion, son of Simias, 7 dr. 1 ob. 
Epigenes, son of Simias, 7 dr. 1 ob. Sosandros, 7 dr. 
The sixth column from the altar of Dione (VI), 
Theugenes of Peiraieus, 8 dr. 2 ob. 
10  Kephisogenes of Peiraieus, 8 dr. 2 ob. 
Teukros living in 
Kydathenaion, 8 dr. 2 ob. 
Kephisodoros living in Skambonidai, 8 dr. 2 ob. 
Nikostratos, 8 dr. 2 ob. Theugeiton 
XV, 1. of Peiraieus, 8 dr. 2 ob. 
—------ those opposite the altar; 
the — — — from the altar of 


XIII, col. 1 
Five (?) dr. Toa joiner working 
by the day — - --—-- - - : 
in the third period of twelve days, 
at five (?) obols a day, 
5 seven days, 
to Euainetos (?), living in Alopeke, 5 dr., 5 ob. 
For gluing (the cymatium) around (the openings), 
by additional contract, 
at two drachmae each opening, 
10 four openings, 
to Manis, living in Kollytos, 8 dr. 


386 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


10 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


parvoy mep[ixo\AéoavTe ha 1- 
poceutcboa|apuev, Svotv dpax- 
patvy héxaotlov 76 horator, ho- 
mata éxs, Mav[idu €v Koddurét 
houxévre :AF[F. 76 Kupatiov 7re- 
pixo\Aéoar|re ha mpoceucd- 
ocapev, dvot|y dpaxyaty héxa- 
atov 70 horaltov, horata éxs, K- 
potaot, Alt]. xKl[epadarov TeKTO- 
vuxe :FEFIIIN: [huropyots Kab’ he- 
pépav [hlepy[afouévois, rev Tp- 


OXLACLOV AL =. aie K- 
exporto CC.) \| a ieee eee K- 
expowtika’ | Oi ideo eee 

was ourle |i oru eee ne 

COCW EP TA ee [ avd- 


pactly], dpaxplerv rés éuepas, Ko- 
vove 1H: ’AmoNX[oddpor :+: Ipémov- 

Tt skY Maoh | ea eee 
Maypipidvous kel Seen eee be 
pia Kabend[ou Kal aroKopioa- 

ot hard 76 Tolixo 76 mpos Bope- 

o had’ dv ra §[drdia érébe, héxs 


avipaot, U[pérovre INI: Mé6oe : 111: ’A- 


FOAN00G| Oe lh see ee ee 
aloe: lll [grate ate ee 
hore |. ioe ca eee 
pol s.0°5:..2s See ee 


addlovra, FAAA. IIpaxctas éu Me- 
Niree [horxév, Tov veavioxov 


TOV, TOOL 5. gehen ee ee 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


For gluing the cymatium around (the openings), 

by additional contract, 

at two drachmae each opening, 

Six openings, 

to Manis, living in Kollytos, 12 dr. 
For gluing the cymatium around (the openings), 

by additional contract, 

at two drachmae each opening, six openings, 

to Kroisos, 12 dr. 


Sum total of payments for joiner’s work, 52 dr., 4 ob. 


To laborers working by the day, 
the block and tackle — -— — -— — 
of the Kekropion — — — — — — - 


a ag ah aeetio to seven men, 

at a drachma a day, 

to Konon, 1 dr.; to Apollodoros, 1 dr.; 

to Prepon, 1 dr.; to Medos, 1 dr.; 

to — — — , 1 dr.; to Mammanos, 1 dr.; to — -, 1 dr. 
For taking down and carrying away the scaffolding 
from the north wall, from which 

the figures of the frieze were fastened in place, 

to six men; to Prepon, 3 ob.; to Medos, 3 ob.; 

to Apollodoros, 3 ob.; to — — — , 3 ob.; 

to --- ,38o0b.;------ 


XIV, col. 1; XVI, col. 1 


Phyromachos 
of Kephisia, — — the wagon 
striking — — , 80 dr. Praxias, 


living in Melite, the youth 


387 


388 
VEL COL ie anal 


or 


10 


15 


20 


25 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


.. Tov yp|adovra [vlea[vic |kov 
kal rov mplolceor|éra havrée ? H 
PAW Nort rehi es ] & Koddurét hork[or, 
Pewee klai rev &maxoay m|dev 
roiv éuovloty, FAAAA. ’Ay[al@ar- 
op ’ANomexéot| how[K |v, 7O yuva- 
tke TO pos Te dualxoe Kal T- 
6 heutovo, HHAAAA...... |v éx 


dv TO blopu héxovra, FA. Pupdpa- 
xos Kleduoreds, Tov veavioxo- 

vy To|v mapa Tov Oopaxa, FA. Ilpax- 
atas| éu MeAtrer horxéy, tov h- 
tmo|v kal tov homiabopave T- 

ov malpaxpoovra, HAA. ’Avtidar- 
es hex] Kepapéov, 70 Gpya xal T- 

ov velavioxov Kat TO hiro TO 
fevy|yumévo, HHAAAA. ®vupdpax- 
os Kel¢ucteds, Tov haryovra T0- 

vy hilamov, FA: Muvviov Ha(y)puvé 
at| houxév, rov himmov Kal Tov 
ha|vdpa rov herixpdovra kal 

té|y orédev hiorepov mpocéb- 

exle :HAAPEH. Zéxdos Hadozexé- 
at] houxév, rov Tov xadwvov hé- 
xolvra, FA: Pupdwaxos Keduote- 

vs], Tov havdpa tov hemt rés Ba- 

kt leplas elorexota, Tov Tapa 

To|v Bouov, FA: Hiacos Ko\dute- 
vs], Tey yuvaixa & € mais mpoo- 
mé|rroxe, FAAA. Kedddauov ha- 
ya|\paroroixké, XXXHHHAL. Ae 
pula, (X)XXXHHHEEFI: havddAoua 76 a- 
vrjov.] Hemi rés Tavéi- 
ovt|6os éy5des tputavevotc- 


es]. Aé€uuara mapa tamer rés 


VI, col. 1, 


1 


10 


15 


20 


25 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


— — the youth who is writing 

and the man standing beside him, 120 dr. 
— -, living in Kollytos 

— — and the wagon without 

the two mules, 90 dr. 

Agathanor, living in Alopeke, 

the two women beside the wagon, 

and the two mules, 240 dr. 


XVII, col, 1 


— — the man holding the spear, 
Phyromachos of Kephisia, 
the youth beside the breast-plate, 
Praxias, living in Melite, 
the horse and the man appearing behind it 
and striking it in the flank, 
Antiphanes of Kerameis, 
the chariot, and the youth, 
and the two horses being harnessed, 
Phyromachos of Kephisia, 
the man leading the horse, 
Mynnion, living in Agryle, 
the horse and the man striking it, 
and he later added the stele, 
Soklos, living in Alopeke, 
the man holding the bridle, 
Phyromachos of Kephisia, 
the man leaning on a staff 
beside the altar, 
Tasos of Kollytos, the woman with the 
little girl leaning against her, 
Sum total of payments for sculpture, 
Receipts, 
Expenditures, 
In the eighth prytany, 
that of the tribe Pandionis, 
received from the treasurers 


389 


60 dr. 


60 dr. 


120 dr. 


240 dr. 


60 dr. 


127 dr. 


60 dr. 


60 dr. 


80 dr. 
3315 dr. 
4302 dr., 1 ob. 
the same. 


390 


30 


35 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


Oe|6, ’Aperaixpo Haypvudébev k- 

ai] cvvapxovrov, XHHAAAT FFE 

Kl. halvadouara. hovéwara: ca- 
vildes d00 hes ds Tov Aovyov ha- 
vlaypado|ulev, Spaxues hexare- 

paly, KF. Kedbadratoy hoveuarov 

KE]. AOopytxé: paBddceos Tar 

Kt]ovov Tov mpos €0 TOV KaTG T- 

ov] Boudv- tov Ttpitov hao 76 B- 

op|é rés Avoves, Haperirades 

év K]oide(c) houxév, APF EF. Haltlox- 
ivels :ATFEF, Avoavias, ATFFF. 2- 
opé|ves Hapewrado :ATFFE: Ti- 
pok|pares SAT EFF: tov hexouer- 

ov éxa és, Diuias ’AdomeKeor h- 

ouxéy ‘A|F EF, Képdov ‘AFF INN: Div- 
dpov Diu jio, AFF III DoxAes Hax- 
otoTeiOlos, AFFINU. Zavvioy Zi- 
milo, A[FEHJIN. Hemvetxes [Z]uuio :A 
FEIJNI. dlclardpos Ziwio, AFF IIIT. 
TO|v hexopevov éxaés, ’Oveot- 

pos] Nuxoorp[a]ro :APF[IN]I. Heddo- 
xao0|s ’AXomexéou hol[txs|y, APF II 

Il: KA]éov :APFIIN. = Ziulov Hay |puvAe- 
ot hjouxéy: APFIIN. Hlavr|idoros 
Trab]lio, APE Helpoclease ADD 
Il. rov] hexouevov [hex ]oés, Oevy- 
éves| Ilerpaced[s, AP]. Keducoye- 

ves Iecpaced[s, AP. T]eld]xpos év 
Kvéda|@evaio [houx]év, AP. Keg- 
a060|pos é[v DkapBlovidéy ho- 

xov], AT. N{t|xolotpalros :AT. Oevye- 
irov| Ilevpaileds], AT. ds dpoc- 
Tatlas katax|o6é|yre TO wapa 76- 

v Olvexé Bowd[v], TloAvKdés [A ]axt- 
ade|s :AAAT. pal[B]ddceos rév Ki6- 
vov T|év mpols élo rév Kata Tov B- 
oor]. Tov mpos Th Bows res Avé- 

ves, A|doagos [’A]Aomexq[Olev, AA. &- 


30 


35 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 391 


of the goddess, 

from Aresaichmos of Agryle and his colleagues, 1239 dr., 1 ob. 
Expenses. Purchases: 

Two boards upon which we inscribe the account, 


at a drachma each, 2 dr. 
sum total of purchases, 2 dr. 
Stonework: 


For channelling the columns at the east end, 

those opposite the altar; the third column 

from the altar of Dione (III), 

Ameiniades, living in Koile, 18 dr. 

Aischines, 18 dr. lLiysanias, 18 dr. 

Somenes, son of Ameiniades, 18 dr. 

Timokrates, 18 dr. 

The next column (IV), 

Simias, living in Alopeke, 18 dr. 

Kerdon, 12 dr., 5 ob. Sindron, son of Simias, 12 dr., 5 ob. 
Sokles, son of Axiopeithes, 12 dr., 5 ob. Sannion, son of Simias, 12 dr., 5 ob. 
Epieikes, son of Simias, 12 dr., 5 ob. 

Sosandros, son of Simias, 12 dr., 5 ob. 

The next column (V), 


Onesimos, son of Nikostratos, 16 dr., 4 ob. 

Eudoxos, living in Alopeke, 16 dr., 4 ob. 

Kleon, 16 dr., 4 ob. 

Simon living in Agryle, 16 dr., 4 ob. 

Antidotos, son of Glaukos, 16 dr., 4 ob. Eudikos (?), 16 dr., 4 ob. 
The next column (VI), 

Theugenes of Peiraieus, 15 dr. 

Kephisogenes of Peiraieus, 15 dr. 


Teukros, living in Kydathenaion, 15 dr. 
Kephisodoros, living in Skambonidai, 15 dr. 
Nikostratos, 15 dr. 
Theugeiton of Peiraieus, 15 dr. 
For smoothing the orthostates, 

the two by the altar of the Thyechoiis, 
Polykles of Lakiadai, 35 dr. 

For channelling the columns at the east end, 
those opposite the altar; 

the column next to the altar of Dione (I), 


392 


70 


75 


80 


85 


90 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


tholy Hepxulelis, AA. [apy |évov A- 
ada|ao, AA. Klapilov Aadcoo.:AA: Hi- 
kapos :A|A. ov hexdopevor [é|xoe- 

s, Ba]Nakpos Ilavavveds :AA: Bid- 
dotplatos Ilaane., AA. Olalpyér- 

tos| Paddxpo, [A]A. idAdpy[o]s Pad- 
akplo :AA. Tépu[s| Badaxp[o], AA: tov 
hex louevor [éx]oes, ’Auler|yrade- 

s é€lv Koide[e ot |xév ‘AA. = Atoxivn- 

s, AJA. Avoalvias, AJA. Zoluleves Hap- 
ev|vidd[o, AA. T |tuox[plares, AA, 70- 

vy hlexo[wev lov éxoés, Dipias: ’Ad- 

om |exéou houxdv, AFFFFII. Keépé- 

ov], AFFFFII. Divdpoly] Duwio :AFF 
FEI|I. Doxdrés Haxolvom leifos, [AF 
FEF|II. Zavviov Li[pio], AFFF[FII. H- 
emve|ixes Dito, [AFF|FF[1. Zoca- 
vopos| :AFFEEFI: z[dv he|xo[uevor 

éxaes|, Hovéoiu[os Nuxootpar- 

o, APFE|FIIC. H[e]i[d0xa0s ’AXoTreK- 
éeou houx|ov, A[PFEF. KaAéov, ATEF] 
[FI]. Divov Haypuréor horxév, A] 
[TFFEFIC. Havridoros TAabko, AP] 
[FFFIC. Hedéixos, ATEEFIC.| 


XVI, col. 


cedtoa [Tlev [kaumtAev, dvotv 5- 
paxpaty helkacrov To KaAUEp- 

a, éxs ho[vy|ra, Map[cdu €v Koddvr- 
6u houxovrt, A[F Fk. Ta Kaddppar- 
a éxoepyacaplévor...... Te- 
vy cediba év ai[rots........ 
dvotv [6paxuaty héxacrov ro 


Kadu|ppa, héxs ovTa,.....2.. 


70 


75 


80 


85 


90 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 393 


Laossos of Alopeke, 20 dr. Philon of Erchia, 20 dr. 
Parmenon, son of Laossos, 20 dr., Karion, son of Laossos, 20 dr., Ikaros, 20 dr. 
The next column (II), 

Phalakros of Paiania, 20 dr. Philostratos of Paiania, 20 dr. 
Thargelios, son of Phalakros, 20 dr. 

Philourgos, son of Phalakros, 20 dr. 

Gerys, son of Phalakros, 20 dr. 

The next column (III), 

Ameiniades, living in Koile, 20 dr. 

Aischines, 20 dr. Lysanias, 20 dr. 

Somenes, son of Ameiniades, 20 dr. Timokrates, 20 dr. 
The next column (IV), 

Simias, living in Alopeke, 14 dr., 2 ob. Kerdon, 14 dr., 2 ob. 
Sindron, son of Simias, 14 dr., 2 ob. 

Sokles, son of Axiopeithes, 14 dr., 2 ob. 

Sannion, son of Simias, 14 dr., 2 ob. 

Epieikes, son of Simias, 14 dr., 1 ob. Sosandros, 14 dr., 1 ob. 
The next column (V), 

Onesimos, son of Nikostratos, 18 dr., 34 ob. 

Eudoxos, living in Alopeke, 18 dr., 2 ob. (?) 

Kleon, 18 dr., 2 ob. 

Simon, living in Agryle, 18 dr., 14 ob. 

Antidotos, son of Glaukos, 18 dr., 14 ob. 

Eudikos (?), 18 dr., 13 ob. 


XVI, col. 11 


the bent (?) beam, at two drachmae 
each coffer-lid, 

six in all, 

to Manis living in Kollytos, 12 dr. 
For making the coffer-lids — — 

the beam in them - - - — = — 

at two drachmae each coffer-lid, 

six inall- -------- 


394 THE ERECHTHEUM 
XVII, col. u 


[ — — — xeporAdorats Ta Tapa=| 
detyual[rla mAaTTooe TGV XaAK- 
év tov hlelis Ta kadvppata, Neo- 
et €u MeAtrer houxovtTe (FEF. 
hérepov wapadeypwa tAAoar- 

5 Tl, Tev akavOav, hes Ta Kadvp- 
pata, “Avyabavop ’AXomekéou ho- 
uxov, PFE. xebadXarov Kepom)- 
aorats :ATF. pucdol: apxiréxt- 
ove ’Apxtddxor “AypuAebev, AA 

10 ATF, hutoypayparet Ivpyiov- 

t Horpuvet :AAA. Kxepadaroy mu- 
06, FAT F. évKkauret To Kupati- 
ov évKéavtt TO hemi Téu hem- 
oTvNtoe Té hevros, wevTdBo- 

15 ov rov rdda héxacrov, rddas 
hexarov dexatpeés, uraboret 
twpoohamédouev pos hor rpo- 
Tepov etxe, Avovvcoddpor eu 
MeNXirer houxdvtt, heyyvere- 

20 s Hepakdeides O&ev, AAAAFFE 
FFI. xedadarov hevkavtet :AA 
AAFFFEI: gua 2XHHAAAPEFEF 
|. a@vadoua 70 havro :: Hemi re 
s Aiyetéos. Aéuuara rapa Ta- 

25 puov Tes Ged, Tapa ’Apecatxpo 
"Aypudebev kai auvapxovTor, 
X[-JHHHH....... hes iepa pe- 
tla Tov Semlop|yév, héver kai v- 
élar, hes @votav re ’Adevaia- 

30 0, FFFFIII. ’Avadouara. hovéualr- 
a: xaprat heovebecar dvvo hes 
& Ta avTiypada heveypadoap- 
ev, FFIIII. oavides rérrapes, KF 
Fk. xpuotov heovéde hes ras 

35  xadxas, wérada HFATI, dpaxpe- 
s héxacrov 76 méradov, map’ ’Ad- 


ovidos é. MeNirer horkéyTo- 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 395 


XVII, col. 1 
[To modellers in wax] 
for making models of the 
rosettes for the coffer-lids, 
to Neseus, living in Melite, 8 dr. 
For making another model, 
the acanthus, for the coffer-lids, 


Agathanor, living in Alopeke, 8 dr. 
Sum total of payments to modellers in wax, 16 dr. 
Salaries: 

To the architect, Archilochos of Agryle, 36 dr. 
To the under-secretary, Pyrgion of Otryne, 30 dr. 
Sum total of salaries, 66 dr. 


To a painter in encaustic, 

for painting the cymatium 

on the inner epistyle, 

at five obols a foot, 

one hundred and thirteen feet, 

to the contractor, Dionysodoros, 
living in Melite, we gave in addition 
to what he had received before, 


Herakleides of Oa being surety, 44 dr., 1 ob. 
Sum total of payments to the painter in encaustic, 44 dr., 1 ob. 
Receipts, 12389 dr., 1 ob. 
Expenditures, the same. 


In the prytany of Aegeis, 
Received from the treasurers 
of the goddess, from Aresaichmos 


of Agryle and his colleagues, 1400 + dr. 
Paid for offerings for the sacrifice to Athena 
at the new moon, with the workmen, 4 dr., 3 ob. 


Expenditures. Purchases: 

Two sheets of paper were bought, on which 

we wrote the copies of the accounts, 2 dr., 4 ob. 
Four boards, 4 dr. 

166 leaves of gold were bought 

for the rosettes, 

at a drachma a leaf, 

from Adonis, living in Melite, 166 dr. 


396 THE ERECHTHEUM 


s :HFATF. pdduBdos heovede [5v- 
o TadavTo hes rpoabect|y 76- 

40 v Cowloy rapa Loorpatlo éu M- 
editer houxévros :A: xpvalio 1- 
erado dio heovébe ypvcd|aau 
TO hopOadpud 76 Ktovos map’ |’A6- 
ovidos éu MeXirer horkd[vt |o- 

45 $, KK. Kepadaov hoveuaro[y] HF 
AAATEFHEFI: AvOopyixs: paBdd- 
ge€os T6Y KLOVoY TéY Tpo|s| 0, T- 
év mapa Tov Boor: tov [rpdls 76 
Bows rés Avoves, Adolacos| ’AX[o- 

50 =e. : Pidov Hepxueds : I[apulévlov 
Aadcao, Kapiov Aad[oco, Hixap- 
os, HA. rov hexouevoly hexcés, T- 
ov debTepov, Padalxpos Ilacav- 
evs, PiAdorplaros Tavavced- 

55  s, Oap(y)éAtos [Paddxpo, Pépus &- 
adaKkpo :H[A. rov hexouevov éxo- 
és, "Apewv[t]ad[es év Kotde(t) oik6- 
v, Avoariials, Douerles ’Apewia- 
do, Aiox|tvles, Tuolkpares, HA. 7- 

60 ov he[xoulevov éxolés, Litas ’A- 
doze. [holixav, Kép[5ov, Divdpor, 
Lox[Aé|s, Davvioly, Hemvetxes, D- 
o[calvépos, FA. [dv héxrov xiov- 
a [am]o 76 Bows r[és Atdves, Oevy- 

65  e[vels Tletpau., K[eduooyeéves Ile- 
u[pali., Tedxpos [ev Kvdade. hork., 
Keducddopos, [Nuxoorpartos, O- 
evyetrov Iep., [HA. Kepadarov 
A]iBopyiks F. xadxals épyacap- 

70  évous, Nee? éu MeXrt. hlorkév, p- 
vay (APP RE. oSoréXeseal eye 
piav, AFFEE: Hevperdt[des] ev Dx- 
ap. houx., AFFEK. tdc[os] év Dkap- 
Bo: houx., AFFEF. ’Avyoplalvdpos év 

75 Koddv. : houx., play ‘AFFER. xéaAKa- 


s épyao|[aluévor éys, Mavide év 


40 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


70 


75 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


Two talents of lead were bought 

for the fastening of the sculptures, 

from Sostratos, living in Melite, 

Two leaves of gold 

were bought for gilding 

the two eyes of the column, 

from Adonis, living in Melite, 

Sum total of purchases, 

Stonework. 

For channelling the columns at the east end, 
by the altar; 

the column next to the altar of Dione (I), 
Laossos of Alopeke, Philon of Erchia, 


10 dr. 


2ar: 
189 dr., 1 ob. 


Parmenon, son of Laossos, Karion, son of Laossos, Ikaros, 110 dr. 


The next column, the second one (II), 
Phalakros of Paiania, Philostratos of Paiania, 
Thargelios, son of Phalakros, 

Gerys, son of Phalakros, 

The next column (III), 

Ameiniades, living in Koile, Lysanias, 
Somenes, son of Ameiniades, 

Aischines, Timokrates, 

The next column (IV), 

Simias, living in Alopeke, Kerdon, Sindron, 
Sokles, Sannion, Epieikes, Sosandros, 

The sixth column from the altar of Dione (VI), 
Theugenes of Peiraieus, 

Kephisogenes of Peiraieus, 

Teukros, living in Kydathenaion, 
Kephisodoros, Nikostratos, 

Theugeiton of Peiraieus, 

Sum total of payments for stonework, 

For making rosettes: 

To Neseus, living in Melite, for one rosette, 
Soteles — — — for one rosette, 

Eumelides, living in Skambonidai, 

Philios, living in Skambonidai, 

Agorandros, living in Kollytos, for one rosette, 
For making six rosettes, 


110 dr. 


110 dr. 


60 dr. 


1Li0-dr, 
500 dr. 


14 dr. 
14 dr. 
14 dr. 
14 dr. 
14 dr. 


397 


398 THE ERECHTHEUM 


KoAnduréu hjou., FAAAFEEF. xaAk- 


as hepyacape|vou hévdexa, DT= 


Ba Aah earns év Kod ]Av. houxovt- 
80 t, HP EFERK. xaAKxev hlepyacaper- 
Ol PLAY omnes ] rion : AFFE 
HK]. xadAKxas hepyacaplévor tpe- 
cna ee AAJAAFE 70 
cog aR as Aen cet een gs ] é&vou + 
XVIII 
i lgheccs le wk UN een ae AlevKo ré 
Ree eae hs, xad|kas exs K- 
BE een rin, (oe 6|Bod : hexa : 
Pipher ES 5h Jo: hou : AA 
gatas coke eae Alavre T- 
wide tolbnd. Ears cakni aa ac ne lx 
XIX 
Ol g(a a. eee ea dvot- 
v 6|paxmaiv hléxaorov,...... 


. €lu Medirer [hocxévtt, .... T- 
e7t|NOS XK pval oO. ie ere eee 
5 5 a | evor 0| ee eee eee 
i. 2 Mop hen sae eee 
«2 + | XNOAKOR Ole ee 
. | Medi hilo. 2. eee 


10° * Sr x ovood |e ees 


Nn COLoe 
"Emi rés ’EpexOet|6os dexare- 
Ss TpuTavevoges| :- N€upara’ 


hes huepa pera ré|v deuropy- 


6y — —-— — — |vos : Ile6- 
5: = ee Se eT 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


to Manis, living in Kollytos, 
For making eleven rosettes, 


BLOnist, a ses , living in Kollytos, 
80 For making one rosette, 
LO, So ie ; 
For making three rosettes, 
LA) ico ers a 
XVIII 
—------------ white 
—----------- six rosettes 
—----------- obols each 
—-—-—---—------ living in, 20 + dr. 
5 Se oe 
XIX 
== ----- He HK two 
drachmae each — — —- — — = - = 
Ryne Mm velte = == > = 
Mae Vibe O01 eo 
5 eae eee 
=O rosettes —— = — — — = = 
= living in’ Mehte— —— -— — 
the two eyes of the columns — — -— 
pe —~ gilding = = 
XX, col. 1 


In the tenth prytany, 

that of Erechtheis. Receipts: 

for the sacrifices with the workmen, 
—------------- Peith- 


84 dr. 
154 dr. 
14 dr. 


42 dr. 


399 


400 


10 


10 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


XX, col. 1 
"Lagos! =e - 
Me. *collkeee ae eer. ee 
CRAG een ear tA 
OOO [Poke oe ene ee 
CED (ee oe 


— —Jos [ - - 

— = | Mixtori.. el) = 

= — | Fi KAtpax| -— — 

— — ré]rrapas m[ddas? — — 
= UNG la aes 

— — rlopvevr& [ — — 


— — lé&e és 7[ — — 


XXII 
2) een ae 
— -] yoo [ - - 
— —] oves a| — - 
— = | tFREE af - - 
—— | ye :HEF xpi = = 
“= \oropoteo | —=— 
== | oes revyer: Hi= = 
— — tla xobAa emi [ — — 
— — avb]poty dvoty il [ — — 


—-—-—-]tra[—-- 


XXIII 
—— ]edo[ - - 
Nuxd|orpat[os — — 
— — ]s. FFIM, AcoxA[es? — — 
— — Jos :All, Mixov :P [ — — 
— — ] FEF, ’Avridaves [ — — 
— — Jov [, Ipaxelas | — — 
— K]o\\v. A, ’Apior [| — — 


| 


= — Adjogaos INNIC, "Iac[os — — 


— Z|rparov A, | -— - 
— |xtove? [ — - 


10 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


XX, col. 11 


living in Melite — — — 


2 ar. 


Dio2. 4 eo 


Agathanor — — -— — -— - —- 
Giris.2 OF = = ia 


i Las bas 


Antiphanes (?) — 


to Mikion — — — -— — 


—-—ldr. Ladders - —- - - 
eeetOur teet-( 7) © = 

— — to the guard, 1 ob. — 

— — to a lathe worker (?) 

— — was needed for — — — 


XXII 
—~-~4dr ------ 
pei Me a oe 
— the timbers upon — — 
to two men, 2 ob. — — 
XXIII 


— — — Nikostratos - - - 

6 dr.,4 0b. Diokles — — - 

—os, 10 dr., 2 ob. Mikon, 5 (?) dr. — - - 
4dr. Antiphanes, — - -— — 

—on, 6 dr. Praxias, -— — — 


living in Kollytos, 10 dr. Arist — — 
— — Laossos, 44 ob. Iasos — — — 


Straton, 10 dr. —- — - - - 
— — the column — —- —- - - - 


401 


402 THE ERECHTHEUM 


——-—-]. ace —-- - - 
5 ——— ely yurlatka — — 

— — —ley PE - - - 

—-— wtodl --- — 

— — yluvat|ka — — — — 

ts had Witvcr Richtee em 


oyol ------ a 
pos Polpogye tt taint. 
amésou[ey — — — — — K 

& .-eptoven =? A [oe 
KepalAawoy — — — — — — — 
atom[ ------- 


Sere VHRR ee 


10 AAr[------- 


COMMENTARY 


The extant fragments are from the accounts of the second half of the year 408/7 B.c., 
when the temple was approaching completion. Many of the payments recorded are for 
small pieces of work which call for no explanation. The chief difficulty is the fixing of the 
order in which the items of the account are recorded. The texts and translations are printed 
in the sequence adopted in the introduction and illustrated in Figure 194. At the risk of 
undue repetition it has seemed useful to give a summary of the account in tabular form. 
The more important items can be conveniently grouped under four headings, and will be 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 403 


tothe north (?) ------- 
we gave — - —--—---—----—- 
5 of Kephisia, 10 drachmae (?) — — 
Seaton eae 
avOarTaAchMAe (1) =p i 
Receipts -— — - - ------- 
10 25 drachmae (?) - ------ 
Expenses —- —- —-------- 


discussed in the order in which they are first mentioned in the inscription. The commentary 
thus falls into five parts, as follows: 

1. Summary of the accounts of the sixth to ninth prytanies. 

2. Work on a coffered ceiling. 

3. The painting of the inner epistyle. 

4. The channelling of the east columns. 

5. Work on the reliefs of the frieze. 


404 THE ERECHTHEUM 


1. Summary or Accounts oF Srxtu To NintTH PRYTANIES 


Missing portion before SrxtH PRYTANY 
ITT Colhx Receipts [1790,33 ] 
Expenditures. 
Purchases. 
Wages. 
For stonework. 
For channelling columns of East Porch 
Column v [50,0] . 
For sculpture (?) 
For carving figures of the frieze (?) 


For woodwork (?) 


To laborers 


DLL Golly ralae 3 To two men 2,0 
14 To six men, for laying the bent beam and 
the other ceiling beams 6,0 
21 To six men, for removing scaffolding from 
North Porch 6,0 
24 To one man, for erecting scaffolding for 
encaustic painters in interior — 1,3 
27 To two men, for carrying up paint-pots (?) 2,0 
28 Total to laborers 84,45 
To sawyers 
34 To two men, working sixteen days 32,0 
4] To two men, for sawing coffer-lids, working 
seven days 14,0 
42 Total to sawyers 46,0 
49 To encaustic painters, for painting the 
cymatium of the inner epistyle 30,0 
50 Total to encaustic painters 30,0 
54 To gilders, for gilding rosettes, payment 
due from previous prytany i, 
59 Total to gilders ie 
Salaries. 
57 To the architect, Archilochos 37,0 
58 To the undersecretary, Pyrgion 30,5 
59 Total for salaries 67,5 
61 Total expenditures during sixth prytany 1790,34 


SEVENTH PrRyTANy 
66 Receipts 4302,1 
Expenditures. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 


Lacuna between XIII, Purchases. 
Col. 1 and XIV, 
Col. 1. 33 to 45 Wages. 


405 


lines (?) For stonework. 
For channelling columns of East Porch 
Column 1 [50,0 ] 
Column 11 [50,0 | 
Rtv AGL, 1, 1. 1 Column 11 50,0 
7 Column Iv 50,0 
14 Column vi 50,0 
XV, 1 
Lacuna between XV Column I [90,0 | 
and XIII, Col. 1. Column 11 [90,0 ] 
About 30 lines (?) Column v [90,0 ] 
Total for stonework [520,0 | 
For woodwork. 
pettl, Col 1,1. 6 To a joiner, seven days at 5 obols a day 5,5 
To joiners, for gluing mouldings around 
the coffers 
BY To Manis, for four coffers 8,0 
16 To Manis, for six coffers 12,0 
20 To Kroisos, for six coffers 12,0 
21 Total to joiners 52,4 
To laborers 
31 To seven men, at 1 drachma a day 7,0 
37 To six men, for removing scaffolding used 
for fastening figures of the frieze 3,0 
Lacuna between XIII, a eet e 
Col. wand XIV, Total to laborers ? 
Col. 1. 70 to 82 To sawyers (?) 
lines (?) To encaustic painters, for painting the 
cymatium of the inner epistyle [20,0 ] 
To gilders (?) 
Salaries. 
To the architect, Archilochos [36,0 | 
To the undersecretary, Pyrgion [30,0 | 
Total for salaries [66,0] 


To sculptors, for carving figures of the 
frieze. 


406 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


XIV, Col. 1, 1. 11 To Phyromachos (?) for a group 80,0(?) 
12 To Praxias (?), for a youth... 
XA V1,.COler 2 and for the youth writing and the man 
standing beside him 200,0(?) 
5 To , for the and the wagon with- 
out the mules 90,0 
8 To Agathanor, for the two women beside 
the wagon and the mules 240,0(?) 
Lacuna between XVI, Payments to sculptors continued. 
Col. 1and XVII, 
Col. 1. About 25 
lines(?) 
AWTS Col rele To , for the man with the spear 60,0 
3 To Phyromachos, for the youth beside the 
breast-plate 60,0 
6 To Praxias, for the horse and the man be- 
side it 120,0 
9 To Antiphanes, for the chariot, the youth, 
and the horses being harnessed 240,0 
11 To Phyromachos, for the man leading the 
horse 60,0 
14 To Mynnion, for the horse, the man strik- 
ing it, and the stele 127,0 
16 To Sokles, for the man holding the bridle 60,0 
19 To Phyromachos, for the man leaning on a 
staff 60,0 
21 To Iasos, for the woman with the little girl 
leaning against her 80,0 
23 Total to sculptors 3315,0 
24 Total expenditures during seventh prytany 4302,1 
Eicutu PrytTany 
29 Receipts 1239,1 
Expenditures. 
Purchases. 
33 Two boards, on which to inscribe the ac- 
count 2,0 
Wages. 
34 For stonework. 
For channelling columns of East Porch 
41 Column u1 90,0 
47 Column Iv 90,0 
53 Column v 100,0 
60 Column vi 90,0 
63 For smoothing orthostates beside the altar 
of the Thyechoiis 35,0 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 407 


For channelling columns of East Porch 


69 Column I 100,0 
73 Column 11 100,0 
78 Column 111 100,0 
84 Column Iv 100,0 
87 Column v 110,0 
Lacuna between XVII, Column v1 [100,0 ] 
Col. 1 and XVI, Total for stonework [1015,0 ] 


Col. 1. About 43 For woodwork(?) 
lines(?) Awd Gs. e aw Se 


XVI, Col. m,1. 4 For making coffer-lids. 


5 To Manis, for six coffer-lids, at 2 drachmae 
each 12,0 
9 To . for six coffer-lids, at 2 drachmae 
each 12,0(?) 
Lacuna between XVI, 
Col. mand XVII, 
Col. m1. About 24 
lines(?) 
avis Col. 1, 1. 2 To modellers in wax, for making mode's of 
rosettes 
3 To Neseus, for one model 8,0 
rs To Agathanor, for another model, the 
acanthus 8,0 
8 Total to modellers in wax 16,0 
Salaries. 
10 To the architect, Archilochos 36,0 
11 To the undersecretary, Pyrgion 30,0 
12 Total for salaries 66,0 
20 To an encaustic painter, for painting the 
cymatium of the inner epistyle 44,1 
22 Total to encaustic painter 44,1 
23 Total expenditures, during eighth prytany 1239,1 


NintH PrRYTANY 


27 Receipts 2400,0+ 
Expenditures. 
30 Contribution for sacrifices 4,3 
Purchases. 
32 2 sheets of paper, on which to inscribe 
copies of the account 2,4 
33 4 boards 4,0 


OV 166 leaves of gold, for gilding rosettes 166,0 


408 THE ERECHTHEUM 


40 2 talents of lead, for fastening figures of 


frieze 10,0 
44 2 leaves of gold, for gilding eyes of column 2,0 
45 Total purchases (including contribution) 189,1 
Wages. 


46 For stonework. 
For channelling columns of East Porch. 


52 Column 1 110,0 
56 Column 11 110,0 
59 Column 111 110,0 
63 Column Iv 60,6 
68 Column vI 110,0 
69 Total for stonework 500,0 
For making rosettes. 
71 To Neseus, for one rosette 14,0 
72 To Soteles, for one rosette 14,0 
73 To Eumelides, for one rosette 14,0 
74 To Philios, for one rosette 14,0 
75 To Agorandros, for one rosette 14,0 
77 To Manis, for six rosettes 84,0 
79 To St , for eleven rosettes 154,0 
81 To ——,, for one rosette 14,0 
83 To ——,, for three rosettes 42,0 


2. WorK ON A COFFERED CEILING 


This is referred to in the following passages: 

Siath prytany. XIII, col. 1, ll. 2-14: placing the “bent beam” and the other beams. 
Lines 29-42: sawing lids for coffers. 

Seventh prytany. XIII, col. 1, Il. 6-20: gluing mouldings around sixteen coffers. 

Eighth prytany. XVI, col. u, ll. 1-9: finishing coffer-lids. XVII, col. m1, Il. 1-8: wax 
models for floral ornaments of coffers. 

Ninth prytany. XVII, col. 1, ll. 34-88: purchase of gold for the floral ornaments. 
Lines 69-84: making floral ornaments. XIX, ll. 4-7: gold for floral ornaments. 

As has already been noted (pp. 351 f., 363 f.), the ceiling referred to in these passages 
differed from that made in the previous year in at least two respects: it included a mysteri- 
ous ‘‘bent beam’; and its coffers were apparently filled with plastic floral ornaments. 
Reasons were given for believing that the ceiling laid in 409/8 B.c. was over the East Cella, 
and that the ceiling referred to in these passages belonged to the western portion of the 
temple. It is assumed to have been supported by a great girder at the level of the epistyle, 
dividing it into two sections, each with six main beams (cedides). The cedis kaymbAn, OF 
“bent beam,” referred to in the first passage, and perhaps in XVI, col. 11, 1. 2, may be the 
southernmost of the six beams in the western section, running next to the south wall from 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 409 


the girder to the metopon, and thence continuing in a diagonal line to the first column on 
the west wall. This arrangement, first proposed by Holland in connection with his restora- 
tion of the niche, is shown in Figure 187. Six men were paid a drachma each (one day’s 
wage) for laying these beams. 

No mention is made in the accounts of the «A:waxides (ladders), or of the larger and 
smaller rAaiova (frames), which were used in the ceiling constructed in the previous year. 
The coffers are referred to simply as é7ata (openings). They had xvywarca (mouldings) and 
xaNvppara (lids). And they were apparently adorned with floral ornaments of two types — 
Kadxn and d&xavOa. The coffers of the east ceiling appear to have been three-stepped, with 
elaborately carved mouldings. Those of the west ceiling may have been one-stepped, 
allowing more space for the floral ornaments. 

The word ézaiov occurs only in XIII, col. m1, ll. 6-20, in the sense of coffer-opening; 
but its meaning is clear. 

KaAx7 is used in II, col. 1, 1. 90 to describe the rosettes which were to be carved on the 
epistyle of the Porch of the Maidens. They were presumably similar to the rosettes on the 
jambs and lintel of the north door. Cf. Newton, Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., I, p. 94: “‘xa\x7n was 
the name of a flower used in making wreaths. See Nicander, Georg. II, 1. 60, ap. Athen. XV, 
p. 684c¢ (where Casaubon corrects xkadxas for yadxas); Alkman, ap. Athen. XV, p. 6824; 
Hesych. s.v.; and Dioskor. IV, 58, xpvodvOeuov 4 xadxas (where xadx7 is probably the true 
reading). The flower described by Dioskorides has been identified by botanists with the 
chrysanthemum coronarium.” In the account of 408/7 B.c. the word is spelled xaAxy or 
xarx7, but the form xadx7 is undoubtedly the correct one. Cf. the Epidaurian inscription 
relating to the building of the temple of Asklepios, J.G., IV, 1484, 1. 83, kuparia cal aorpaya- 
Nous Kal KaAxas Kal dorépas ypvoGoa; also B.C.H., XIV, 1890, p. 395, rod veod rod ’AckAn- 
miov THs dpopys Ta Kpiva NevkwoarvTe Kal Tas KaAXaS xpvcwoavTr. The best preserved Greek 
ornaments of this type are from the ceiling of the fourth century Tholos at Epidauros 
(ef. Defrasse-Lechat, Epidaure, p. 119). On the east ceiling of the Erechtheum the coffer- 
lids were decorated with roudddvyes (see above, p. 368). On the west ceiling an acanthus 
design (dxav0a) alternated with the xady7. The inscriptions cited above mention also a 
star (aornp) and a lily (xpivov). 

Wax models of the xa4Axn and d&kava were made in the eighth prytany at 8 drachmae each. 
At least twenty-six «4\xac were executed in the ninth prytany, the price paid for each, 
14 drachmae, being about one quarter of that paid for a figure of the frieze. These orna- 
ments, if they belonged to the west ceiling, were undoubtedly of wood, whereas the similar 
ornaments on the ceiling of the North Portico (p. 89) were probably of marble, like the 
Epidaurian examples. The gilding of the x4\xau is mentioned in inscription XIX (ninth 
prytany). The payment for gilding of x4\xau in the fifth and sixth prytanies (XIII, col. 1, 
ll. 50-55) perhaps refers to the ornaments of the North Portico, as does the mention of 
xaAxat in inscription XVIII, which has been assigned to the end of the fifth prytany. 


410 THE ERECHTHEUM 


3. Tur PAINTING OF THE INNER EPISTYLE 


The items relating to this are as follows: 

Sixth prytany. XIII, col. 1, ll. 21-24: putting up a scaffolding for the encaustic painters 
in the interior, under the ceiling. Lines 42-50: payment of 30 drachmae for the painting of 
the moulding on the inner epistyle, at 5 obols a foot. 

Eighth prytany. XVII, col. 1, ll. 12-22: additional payment of 44 drachmae, 1 obol for 
the painting of the moulding on the inner epistyle, 113 feet, at 5 obols a foot. 

The significance of these passages was first pointed out by B. H. Hill in A.J.A., XIV, 
1910, pp. 291 ff., from which the following note is repeated, in part verbatim. 

The ceiling, under which a scaffolding for the painters in encaustic was put up in the 
sixth prytany, must be identical with that for which the beams had just been laid, i. e., it 
was the ceiling of the western part of the temple which formed one room some 30 feet high. 
The cross-wall running north and south, which divided this room, reached only as high as 
the bases of the columns on the west wall, and had no connection whatever with the epistyle. 
The encaustic work was paid for at 5 obols per foot, and the sum paid is 30 drachmae. One 
might therefore infer that precisely 36 feet had been painted. Now in the entry of the 
eighth prytany 113 feet are specified, which at the rate of 5 obols per foot would amount to 
94 drachmae, 1 obol, while the sum actually paid is 44 drachmae, 1 obol. It would seem 
therefore that 50 drachmae must already have been paid in the sixth and seventh prytanies. 
In the sixth prytany we know that 30 drachmae were paid, and it is reasonable to infer that 
the balance of 20 drachmae was paid in the seventh prytany, the account for which has 
been lost. Thus the payments of the sixth and seventh prytanies were unquestionably 
advances on account, and the omission in the accounts of the sixth prytany to specify the 
number of feet painted is therefore perfectly natural. The payment in the eighth prytany 
is undoubtedly final and indicates the completion of the work, and the length, 113 feet, is 
the entire length of epistyle painted under the contract. 

The item cannot refer to the epistyle of the East Cella, which was only 104 feet long, 
the room being 30 feet wide and 22 feet deep. 

The next point to determine is whether the length of 113 feet can be brought into har- 
mony with the dimensions of the western room. This room is 33 feet long, east to west, and 
30 feet wide. This would give an epistyle 126 feet in length, if the epistyle were regular, 
and the irregularities of structure in the southwest corner would increase this length by 
about 5 feet (Fig. 203). How then is this discrepancy to be reconciled? 

In this corner there was a platform which had the width of the niche, and which was only 
about 11 feet below the epistyle. No fixed scaffolding would have been necessary here, as it 
was in the rest of the room, which was 30 feet high. To this high scaffolding reference is 
made in XIII, col. 1, 1.21; and the material for it is probably referred to in line 14, where the 
removal of the scaffolding from the North Portico is spoken of. It is therefore reasonable 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 411 


to believe that the account under consideration covered only the work done from the scaf- 
folding. That done from the platform may have been completed in some earlier prytany of 
which we have no account. Or, if the niche was hidden from the interior by a grille, as 
Holland proposes, the epistyle in the niche may well have been left unpainted. 

The portion of the epistyle painted from the high staging would have been 117 feet in 
length, thus: 


West, normalepistyle: 95) cn. o554k. een ee2 teat 
NOTE feos las ks elles he aes Auer ye a 33° 
| Yee Pmt aah Ree MR eS REE a A By 2h Om ll OA rN igh 
South, from cross-wall to metopon.......... 28 “ 
Raskside of métopons a5 Sieuks ce ee 1 foot 
117 feet 


This length is still four feet greater than that called for by the inscription; but there is 
a way in which the discrepancy can be explained. Evidence has been given (p. 154), for 
the existence of a girder running north and south at the level of the epistyle, dividing 


i [ 


o 0 
ie Nn 
| 


Figure 203. DIAGRAM SHOWING THE LENGTH OF INNER EPISTYLE PAINTED 


the ceiling into two sections. The evidence for the brackets supporting the struts which 
strengthened this girder suggests that it was two feet wide. Therefore in reckoning the 
extent of the painted moulding on the epistyle we must deduct two feet on the north side, 
and two feet on the south. We thus get 113 feet, the length called for by the account. 
We obtain, furthermore, confirmation for the existence of the girder and for the abnormal 
treatment of the southwest corner. 


4. Tor CHANNELLING OF THE East COLUMNS 
The passages referring to this operation are as follows: 
Seventh prytany. XIV, col. 1, Il. 1-14; XV, ll. 1-4: payment of 50 drachmae for work 
on column IV, and of the same amount for work on column VI, and probably on column III. 
Eighth prytany. XVII, col. 1, ll. 34-87: payments of 90 drachmae each for work on 
columns III, IV and VI; of 100 drachmae each for work on columns V, I, II, II, IV; and 
of 110 drachmae for work on column V. 


412 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Ninth prytany. XVII, col. u, ll. 46-69: payments of 110 drachmae each for work on 
columns I, II, III, VI; of 60 drachmae for work on column IV. 

These accounts are introduced by the phrase, paBddceos Tév Kidvov Tov mpds %o, Tov KaTa 
(rapa) rév Bousy, and the six columns are designated according to their relative proximity 
to an altar of Dione, which apparently stood near one end of the East Portico, e.g., tov 
tpitov amd 76 Bows res Aroves; Tov éxdpuevoy Exes; TOV Tpds TO Boud Tés Avoves; Tov éxTov Klova a7 
76 Bows rés Avéves. In the eighth prytany two separate operations on columns III-VI are 
recorded, and a third operation on columns I-IV and VI in the ninth prytany. It is note- 
worthy that the three operations on each column are performed by one and the same group 
of workmen, and that consequently we have six groups of names, one for each column. 
These same groups appear in inscription XIV, assigned to the same columns as in inscription 
XVI, a fact which in itself would show that the work in the seventh prytany was on the 
columns of the East Portico. This is, moreover, confirmed by the restoration of amo 76 
Bos r[és Avdve]s in line 8. The work of channelling the east columns was thus divided into 
at least four separate operations costing 50, 90, 100, 110 drachmae respectively. It is not 
likely that there were more than four operations. The items in the inscriptions may be 
conveniently arranged in a table, as follows, the payments actually recorded in the extant 
portions or restored with certainty being printed in heavy-faced type: 


PRYTANIES 
nen Be ae Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth | Tenth Bis: 

I | 5 men, Laossos, etc. ....... ae 50 90 ae 100 | 110 oe 350 dr. 

If 1,5 men, Phalakros, etc. 727; er. 50 90 ae 100 | 110 ae. 350 dr. 
III | 5 men, Ameiniades, etc. .... nis 50 = 90 100 | 110 ee 350 dr. 
IV | 7 men, Simias, etc. ........ Rages. 90 100 60 50 350 dr. 
V_ | 6men, Onesimos, etc. ..... 50 _ 90 100 | 110 ia = 350 dr. 
VI | 6 men, Theugenes,etc. ....) .. 50 ~ 90 100 | 110 aaa S50rdz, 


It is natural that each operation should take more time, and consequently be more 
costly than the one preceding it, and that the first operation — the preliminary chiselling 
down of the rough envelope of marble — should take considerably less time than the actual 
carving and smoothing of the fillets and channels. 

In XIII, col. 1, 1. 14, we have the record of the removal of the scaffolding from the North 
Portico, suggesting that the channelling of its columns had been completed in the sixth pry- 
tany. It is probable that the same thirty-four masons who channelled the east columns had 
previously been employed on those of the North Portico, and that the work on the second 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 413 


set began immediately after the completion of the work on the first set. Inscription XIV, 
recording the payments for the first operation on columns III, IV and VI, is thus shown to 
belong to the seventh prytany; and the correctness of the position assigned to it in the 
introduction (p. 373) is confirmed. The omission of column V suggests that the first 
operation had been completed in the sixth prytany. This same operation on columns I and 
II may also have been carried out in the sixth prytany. But it seems more probable that 
it was done in the seventh. The items referring to it, as restored in the text above the first 
line of XIV, occupy fourteen lines. 

The accounts of the eighth prytany contain first the statement of an operation costing 
90 drachmae on columns III, IV and VI, and one costing 100 drachmae on column V; then 
an operation costing 100 drachmae on columns I, I, III, IV, and one costing 110 drachmae 
on column V. This shows that the second operation (costing 90 drachmae) on columns I, 
II and V must have been done in the seventh prytany, and recorded in the missing portion 
between XV and XIII, col. 1. The operation costing 100 drachmae on column VI must 
have been recorded in the account of the eighth prytany, immediately below inscription 
SVIT, col. 1. 

The payments in the eighth prytany thus show that the fifth column was one step ahead 
of the others; and the fact that it is entirely omitted in the account of the ninth prytany, 
which records the operation costing 110 drachmae, shows that it was completed in the 
eighth prytany, and that the fourth operation was the final one. The low cost of the work 
on the fourth column in the ninth prytany, 60 drachmae, suggests that this operation was 
for some reason not completed by the end of the prytany; the remaining work (50 drachmae) 
may have been recorded in the missing accounts of the tenth prytany. The total cost of 
channelling each column was in all probability 350 drachmae. 


5. WorRK ON THE RELIEFS OF THE FRIEZE 


The passages relating to this are as follows: 

Seventh prytany. XIII, col. 11, ll. 831-387: removal of scaffolding from the north wall, 
‘which had been used for fastening figures of the frieze in place. XIV, col. m1, ll. 9-14, con- 
tinued on XVI, col. 1, ll. 1-8: payments to sculptors for carving figures of the frieze. XVII, 
col. 1, ll. 1-23: similar payments to sculptors, including a statement of the total amount 
paid for sculpture during the prytany (8315 drachmae). 

Ninth prytany. XVII, col. 1, ll. 38-41: purchase of two talents of lead to be used in 
the fastening of the figures of the frieze. 

Tenth prytany. XXIV: work on the figures of the frieze? 

As has been shown in the introduction to these accounts, the inscription XIV, col. 1, is 
followed directly by XVI, col. 1; and XVII, col. 1, is to be placed below XVI, col. 1, some 
twenty-five lines being lost between them. The payments for sculpture in the seventh 
prytany, which amounted to 3315 drachmae, filled from eighty to one hundred lines. The 


414 THE ERECHTHEUM 


normal payment for a single figure was 60 drachmae. Consequently the number of figures 
paid for must have been approximately fifty-five. The items recorded in XVII are clear. 
There were five single figures costing 60 drachmae each, two groups of a man and a horse 
(each costing 120 drachmae), a group consisting of a youth and a chariot and team (240 
drachmae) and a group of a woman with a child leaning against her (90 drachmae). A 
stele, for which 7 drachmae were paid, was added later to the second group of a man with a 
horse. The total amount paid for these fifteen figures was 897 drachmae. 

The text of XIV, col. m and XVI, col. 1, is incomplete. I have adopted in general the 
restorations tentatively suggested by Pallat (A.J.A., XVI, 1912, pp. 175 ff.). His restora- 
tions of the names of the sculptors Phyromachos and Praxias are far from certain. As a 
possible alternative to duaxcav in XIV, col. 1, 1. 10, Pallat (l.c., p. 189, note 1) suggests 
xepatay “because the youth with the mast, the yard, and the sail under his arm (PLATE 
XLV, 92) brings to mind the peplos of Athena, which was fastened in the Panathenaic 
procession as an ioriov to a frame consisting of iorés and xepaia.”’ The letters add at the be- 
ginning of line 12, which Kirchhoff had read as part of zaddadiwr, Pallat restores as Baddovra 
PAAA, or Bé\dovras HAA. ‘In the former case not only the man but also the object with 
which he is occupied would be included in the reckoning, in the latter case two figures.”’ 
The missing six letters at the beginning of |. 4, XVI, col. 1, were restored by Robert, 
Hermes, XXV, 1890, pp. 481 ff., as 76 60s, ‘‘the image.”’ Pallat (l.c., p. 190, note 1) sug- 
gests as alternatives 76 céua or 76 épua. The latter ‘‘might designate the support that was 
intended to hold the icrés and the xepaia.” He notes also that the statue need not have 
been in the wagon as Weissmann (Bevtrdge zur Erkldrung griechischer Kunstwerke, pp. 34 ff.) 
had inferred from the price paid. 

The contents of the passage may be summed up as follows: 

1. A group, by Phyromachos, consisting of a wagon and ‘‘a person who is throwing, 
setting, or laying something upon something or pushing something into something,” and 
possibly a second person. Price, 80 or 120 drachmae. 

2. A group, by Praxias, consisting of ‘‘a youth who is busied with some object, a second 
youth who is writing, and a third standing beside him.” Price, 200 drachmae (?). 

3. A group, by and Agathanor, consisting of an image (?), a wagon, a pair of 
mules, and two women standing beside the wagon. Price, 330 drachmae. Total, 610 or 650 
drachmae. 

The extant passages thus account for perhaps 1507 drachmae out of 3315, or about 
twenty-four figures out of about fifty-five. They occupy thirty-seven lines of the account. 
Part of the remaining items were recorded in the missing (twenty-five?) lines between XVI, 
col. 1 and XVII, col. 1. The rest occupied twenty to forty lines above XIV, col. 1. 

Robert’s theory that the figures paid for in the seventh prytany belonged to the frieze 
on the north side of the main building has been accepted by Pallat and Frickenhaus.! The 
arguments in favor of this seem fairly conclusive. They may be stated as follows: (1) The 


1 Cf. Pallat, 1. c., p. 188, note 1. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 415 


payment for the removal of the scaffolding from the north wall during the seventh prytany 
shows that the frieze had recently been put in place. (2) It is probable that the payments to 
the sculptors were not made till the figures had been fastened, since some final touches might 
prove necessary in adjusting them to the background. (3) The figures presumably belonged 
together in one consecutive group; and they were listed in the order in which they were 
placed on the building. This may be inferred from the fact that the works of each sculptor 
are not mentioned together. The total length of frieze occupied by the fifty-five (more or 
less) figures paid for may be reckoned as about 55 Attic feet, i.e., one figure to the running 
foot.! The length of the north frieze from the east end to the point where it is interrupted 
by the roof of the North Portico is of exactly the length required. (4) The theory helps to 
account for the fact that none of the figures described in the inscription can be identified 
certainly with extant fragments of the frieze. In Chapter III, p. 240, reasons have been 
given for believing that the preserved fragments of the frieze of the main building are 
likely to be from the east front and the eastern end of the south side. 

The inscriptions throw no more light than do the extant figures on the scenes depicted. 
Probably, as Robert and Pallat have remarked, separate scenes from a cycle — or several 
cycles — of myths were represented. The list of figures in XVII, col. 1, ll. 1-23 gives a 
fairly clear picture of the harnessing of a four-horse chariot preparatory to the departure of 
a warrior. The man holding a spear is presumably the hero himself, about to put on the 
breastplate beside which a youth is standing. The horse, mentioned next, is being led by 
the man, who is shown behind it, towards the chariot, to which two of the horses are being 
harnessed by a youth. Beyond the chariot the fourth horse is being led up by one man, 
while another man is striking it. To balance the breastplate, the youth, and the warrior 
at one end we have at the other an altar, a man leaning on a staff, and a woman with a child. 
Whether there was a stele beside the altar, or whether the altar itself was inaccurately 
described as a stele in line 14 is uncertain.” 

Apparently no portion of the frieze was put up in the eighth prytany. The sculptors 
were probably engaged in carving the figures which were fastened in place in the ninth 
prytany, when two talents of lead were purchased eis rpdcbeow rév Sodiov. The work 
was continued in the tenth prytany, as appears from the small fragment XXIV. 

The sculptors mentioned were evidently subordinates who carried out the designs pre- 
pared by some unknown master. Only two of the names occur elsewhere. Phyromachos 
is perhaps to be identified with the Pyromachus, mentioned by Pliny, V.H., XXXIV, 80, 
as the maker of a chariot driven by Alcibiades. Praxias may be the Athenian sculptor, said 
to have been a pupil of Calamis, who worked on the pediment groups of the temple of Apollo 

1 The dowel holes in the frieze of the North Portico suggest that there were about three figures to the running 
metre. Those in the frieze of the East Portico show that there were 3.29 figures to the running metre. Cf. Ch. III, 
p. 242, and note 3. 


2 Cf. Bergk’s description of the group, Z. Alterthumswissenschaft, 1845, p. 987, which is accepted by Brunn, 
Geschichte der griechischen Kiinstler, 1, p. 250. 


416 THE ERECHTHEUM 


at Delphi, but died before their completion (Pausanias, X, 19, 4). The rebuilding of this 
temple was not begun before 371 B.c., and lasted for many years." The sculptor of its pedi- 
ment groups could not have been a pupil of Calamis, though he might, in his youth, have 
worked on the frieze of the Erechtheum. The statement of Pausanias can be accounted for 
by assuming either that Praxias was the pupil of a younger Calamis or that Calamis is an 
error for Callimachus. This latter theory, proposed by Homolle, B.C.H., XXVI, 1902, 
pp. 634 ff., is accepted by Mrs. Van Buren.’ 

It is noteworthy that Agathanor, who carved the group consisting of a woman beside a 
wagon drawn by mules (XVI, col. 1, 1. 6), was also employed to make a wax model of an 
acanthus ornament for the west ceiling (XVII, col. u, 1. 4). 


Part IV. FracMents or Accounts LATER THAN 408/7 B.c. 


Numbers Nat. Mus. Dinsmoor J.-M. Other publications 
XV Ee ew 6668 x = 1.G., I, 325; I, 374 
ao: Vib eh ee 8005 44 as I.G., I, 845 
XVII 7981 7, 30 1.G., I, 829 


The inscription XXVIII has long been connected with the Erechtheum, and has been 
supposed to record repairs made necessary by the fire which broke out in the zadavds vews 
in 406 B.c. (cf. Ch. V, pp. 460 ff.). It is argued that this fire, even if it started in the He- 
catompedon, probably injured the adjoining Erechtheum as well. And the mention of the 
Pandroseum in line 36 suggests that the work was done on the Erechtheum. Its date has 
been disputed. Kohler, in the first publication of the inscription, restored émi| A]ilopavro 
apxov[ros| in line 26, which would give the-date 395/4 B.c. Cooley and Dorpfeld (A.J.A., 
III, 1899, p. 352, note 3) proposed ér]i [KadXio] a&pxor[ros] (406/5 B.c.), which is preferable 
on historical grounds, since it eliminates the period of ten years between the fire and the 
repairs. A more probable solution, however, was suggested by Dinsmoor (l.c.). He dis- 
covered that the fragment X XVII joins accurately the top of X XVIII, and therefore dates 
from the year previous to that of XXVIII. He also assigned to the Erechtheum the frag- 
ment No. X XVI, because it resembled the accounts of 408/7 B.c. in the size and spacing 
of its letters, but Nos. XX VII, XXVIII in its formulae (giving the total of the wages paid 
day by day). This fragment was assigned by Dinsmoor to 407/6 B.c., making impossible 
the restoration ér]i [Ka\Xo] &pxor[ros] in XXVIII. He therefore restored ’Adegias, the 
archon of 405/4, instead of KaAXias, dating fragments XX VII and XXVIII in 406/5 and 
405/4 B.c. respectively.? See, however, p. 422, notes 1 and 2. ; 


XXVI. Fragment 0.34 m. high, 0.275 m. wide, 0.105 m. thick (back broken away). 
Right edge and bottom preserved. The lines of the inscription begin about 0.22 m. from 


1 Cf. Courby, Fouilles de Delphes, II, pp. 112 ff. 

2 *Praxias,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, III, pp. 91 ff. Mrs. Van Buren notes that the name 
Praxias occurs in three other inscriptions: I.G., II, 1208; VII, 430; B.C.H., XV, 1891, p. 118. 

° On the date and interpretation of these inscriptions, see also Ch. V, p. 460, note 5. 


OF 


IITAXX GNV ITAXX SNOILdIMOSNI °C0G TAOAOL 


/1 ouTsoa la 
\ ota =a ON 
Hit |HWwOVG4a 

\ 1O UOSIWN 
Vv 


02 
ST 


Ol 


fou 
aS, 
SHL 
Ppa es 
Govs:e 
Crt OU 
OdyvdJ 
rays oe | 
P4HIV 
OHV3A II 
Woes. OV et 
IHVOS I 
OHw!| +L: 
VNOv4A 
NU I NNZ- 
Ne Nees et 
12 1dvV 
OxrA1O 
Ont {Oo 
YVNOWY 


0€ 


0G 


GT 


01 


IAXX NOILUIMOSNI *“F0Z TAA 


477 INISOALAIVAININ IS Vd V7 
NAL kd 2 SLIHOV VoH444 
o>" JIVAISId LNIZVdVNV3YV 


Sid LIZ03V SONANIZVdV 
ITL Ad SS LISL JHA 


ea awa 


0! 


S=LIFZLd ws! 
AISId LNISVdVN 


AVId LN! ~ %dVP 
IGildt:444di 
NIUH:NIS V 
da 


[ 417 ] 


418 


the right edge, and end 0.167 m. above the bottom of the slab. Found on the Acropolis 
west of the Parthenon in 1839, according to Pittakis. In the National Museum. 
Pittakis, "Ed. ’Apy., 418, 2033. Rangabé, Ant. hellén., 87. I.G., I, 325; I, 374. Dins- 


moor, X. 


Facsimile, Figure 204. 


XXVIII, XXVIII. Two fragments of a marble slab 0.10 m. thick, which have been 
shown by Dinsmoor to fit together. Back roughly dressed. Stovchedon. 
Facsimile, Figure 205. 


XXVII. Fragment, 0.245 m. high, 0.15 m. wide. Broken on three sides; the original 
left edge preserved. Found near the Erechtheum. In the National Museum. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


I.G., II, 845. Dinsmoor, Y. 


10 


XXVI 


— — — — d]e[v|répalt rés rpura- 
vetas av |dpaoww : hevols déoou 
elxoow ? AJPEEEE: rpire: r[és mpur- 
, e J lj r \ 

avelas : a|vdpaow Tpraxolyra Kal 
hevi ? AAJAF? rerapte réls mpuTa- 

, by le \ \ y 
vetas a|vdpaow tpiot klal TpraKor- 
Ta ? AAJA III = wéurre: rés [zpurave- 
, 3 lg \ \ , 
ias| avépaow tproi Kal TplLaKovT- 
ai AJAAIII : hé[x]re rés rpurar|etas 
3 t Cy | 4 ps 
.|vdpaou évds déo0 Tprda[Kovra 
AJAPFFEF? heBddue rés [purave- 
tas avdpdouw Tpit Kal elkolow :AA 
HEF: hoydéne Tés rputavieias av- 


dpacw évi kal elxoow ?AAF|[ — — — 


XXVIT, XXVIII 


pa|éuova vl — — — — — éu Me- 

Alir. oixéy[ra, — — — — — — — 

.Jot oixéy[ra, — — — — — — — 

JA: ’Apiorava ’Adow| re. oikovTa, — — 
:|é4 MeNL.otx,, CEL = = — 
M]uvviwva éu MeN. oik., — — — Iadr- 


po|xdov ’Adwre. olixovra, — — — — 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 419 


XXVIII. Fragment, 0.24 m. high, 0.21 m. wide. Broken on three sides; the original 


left edge preserved. Formerly in the possession of the Archaeological Society; now in the 
National Museum. 


Kohler, Hermes, II, 1867, p. 20. J.G., Il, 829. Choisy, Etudes, p. 136. J.-M. App. 
Ep., 30. Dinsmoor, Z. 


foeemeiveadings. L.1 2, 0.G. L.10 E=h, 1.G. L. 14 1ITONVC, 1.4. L. 20 ON I/, IG. 
L. 28 “O zu Anfang sicher und die darauffolgende Liicke nach den allerdings unsicheren Spuren 
des Steines (TEN) vielleicht durch TE auszufiillen,’”’ Hermes. L. 35 N=IO2, Hermes. L. 38 TA, 
emmes dz. Lb. 39 EXP .T,7.G. L.41 Will, 7.4. 


XXVI 


On the second day 
of the prytany, to nineteen men, 
19 dr. On the third day 
of the prytany, to thirty-one men, 
5 3l1dr. On the fourth day 
of the prytany, to thirty-three men, 
33 dr. On the fifth day 
of the prytany, to thirty-three men, 
33 dr. On the sixth day 
10 of the prytany, to twenty-nine men, 
29 dr. On the seventh day 
of the prytany, to twenty-three men, 
23 dr. On the eighth day 
of the prytany, to twenty-one men, 21 drachmae. 


XXVII, XXVIII 


Phradmon - — - —------------- 

living in Melite— - -- ----------- 

lvingin ----------------7- 
5 10(?) dr. Ariston living in Alopeke, -— - 

living in Melite, 6 (?) dr. 

Mynnion living in Melite,.- - -— ——- 

Patroklos living in Alopeke, - - - - - 


420 THE ERECHTHEUM 


eps ianre panacea wee ies * 
10 je Bodae eof — — — — - rou 6H- 
plo bday [ - - - ---— - 
CAV ENOL eres re 
5 AT beh [ee eater eee éu Me- 
Nlir.olik —-------- 
151. ypados| = ee b- 
Nv.olxé[pra, —- - - - --- — 


és 70 B| - --------- 


20 


XX VI ob ye ee ee Jef------ 

ér|t [’AXeEto] &pxov[ros — — — — 

tplt[rne T|fis mputralvéas — — — — 

.7|6 [Tle [vlew ta Kexaluuéeva — — — 
Yn|oroaperns tis BloAns — — — — 

30 ... | &y Koda. oikd. AA | — — reraprne rhs mpv- 
tavléas TO épyacrn|piov (or : 76 épyaornpio) — — 
Alpwmidns éu MeNt. oi[kav — — — méumrrne T- 
fs mpvtaveas wrobwmplara — — — — — 0- 
pacwvidne Kuxxuvet | — — — — — — — 

35  .|vatos Tos éxl trav Toilxwy — — — — — — 

.|s Kata 76 Havdpocetov] — — — — — — dp- 
alxuav éxacrov ucbw. ol —- —- — — — — — 

.] FAFFF III. €Bddune 7q[s mpuravéas — — Tos 6- 
xeT los TOs Kawods éLepyalCouevwr — — — — 

40 dpaxpul@v rH eixoorroldli[ay — — — — — — — 
Ph teeta ] PUL. és thy ddelpay (2?) — — -— - 
See taloa Latvpas é D[KayBwvidars oixdans — — 
SIO. ] "1 & és ros dxe[rds — - —- —- = — -— - 
SE Be sk JF wadttw[—- --------- 

BOY AU odie keeetveees ertcnaes Jor[---------- 


XXVIII 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


45 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 421 


was valued 25 (?) dr.—- - ------ 
to the Council - - —- - - -- —---- 
approved by the people 

of Angele — —-—----—---—-—-+=+- 
16: Cy dr eS ee it 
living in Melite 

painting (?) 

living in Phlya — — —- - ----—---- 
Cost berate ee ee Se 


In the archonship of Alexias — — — — - 
On the third day of the prytany — — — 
the parts of the temple destroyed by fire - — 
by vote of the Council — — — —- - - - 


living in Kollytos, 20 (?) dr. — — — On the fourth day 
of the prytany the workshop — — —- - 
Dropides living in Melite — — — On the fifth day 


of the prytany wages —- —---------- 

to Thrasonides of Kikkyna —- - —- —------ 

— — — those upon the walls - - ------- 
towards the Pandroseum —- = — — — = — —-'—= 
drachmae each — — — — —- ---------- 

63 (?) dr., 5 ob. On the seventh day of the prytany, 
for making the new struts (or water-channels) — — — 
— drachmae each length of twenty feet -— — — —- 

— — § (2) dr., 3 ob. For oiling (?) 

— — from Satyra, living in Skambonidai — — 

— — for the struts (or water-channels) — — 


422 THE ERECHTHEUM 


COMMENTARY 


XXVI. The form in which this account was recorded shows that the work paid for 
consisted of small, miscellaneous jobs which could not conveniently be described in detail. 
The number of men employed daily varied between nineteen and thirty-three; and each 
workman apparently received the standard wage of a drachma a day. The numerals III 
in lines 7 and 9 are evidently intended to be ttt. The ascription of the account to the 
Erechtheum is based on external resemblances (the thickness of the slab, the forms and 
spacing of the letters) to the accounts of 408/7 B.c. Nothing in the text indicates that the 
work recorded had to do with the Erechtheum.! 

XXVITI, XXVIII. None of the names occurring in these two fragments is found in the 
earlier accounts. A sculptor, Mynnion, living in Agryle, is referred to in XVII, col. 1, 1. 11; 
and the same man is perhaps mentioned in XXIII, 1. 6. He is to be distinguished from the 
Muvviwy éu Meri. oik. of X XVII, 1. 7. 

The new éxeroi referred to in lines 39 and 43 remain a mystery. Cf. above, p. 356. 


XXIX 


An additional fragment of the building inscriptions, No. X XIX, identified by Lolling in 
1888, but since overlooked, is published in Additional Note III, page 648. 


Professor Dinsmoor has recently (September, 1926) advanced strong arguments for connecting this fragment 
with the accounts of 409/8 B.c. He assigns it to the tenth prytany of that year. His arguments, as well as his 
latest view in regard to the dating of fragments XX VII, XXVIII, will be published in the near future in the American 
Journal of Archaeology. 


CHAPTER V 


THE HISTORY OF THE ERECHTHEUM 


THE preceding chapters of this book have been devoted to the detailed description of the 
existing remains of the Erechtheum, including its sculpture, to an account of the methods 
of construction followed by its builders, and finally to the arrangement and interpretation 
of the fragmentary records of the Athenian commissioners who had charge of its comple- 
tion. On the basis of the evidence thus obtained, supplemented in some particulars by 
the testimony of later writers, the endeavor has been made to reconstruct with a certain 
measure of completeness the plan and appearance of the temple as originally erected. It 
is now proposed to trace its history; that is, to determine, so far as may be, the conditions 
under which it was built, and especially the successive periods of alteration, neglect, and 
repair by which it has been brought to its present state. In the case of a building where all 
relevant, and not infrequently much irrelevant, evidence has been so often collected and 
discussed, and about which so many and so divergent theories have been enunciated, it is 
neither possible, nor even desirable, to pursue such an inquiry without any consideration of 
conflicting views. Yet here, as in the earlier chapters, no attempt has been made to analyze 
or criticize these views in detail, still less to furnish a complete conspectus of the various 
phases through which the study of the’ Erechtheum has passed from the vague guesses of 
the earlier writers to the more complete, if still imperfect, understanding of the present day. 
Moreover, since it is the building itself which is the subject of this chapter, questions relat- 
ing to the origin and significance of the cults, or to the growth and variations of the myths 
connected with the Erechtheum have been generally excluded, and both cults and myths 
noticed only in so far as they appear to have influenced the site or the form of the temple. 

Thus limited in scope the material may be most conveniently treated under six heads: 


I. The Site and its Surroundings before the building of the Erechtheum. 
II. The Erechtheum as a Greek Temple. 
III. The Erechtheum as a Christian Church. 
IV. The Erechtheum as a Turkish House (1458-1687). 
V. The Erechtheum as a Ruin (1687-1837). 
VI. The Reconstruction of the Erechtheum (1837-1925). 


423 


424 THE ERECHTHEUM 


I. Tue Site oF THE ERECHTHEUM 


The ground on which the Erechtheum stands has been so transformed, first by the con- 
struction of the building itself, and then by the successive alterations to which that build- 
ing has been subjected, and the evidence for the early history of this portion of the Acropolis 
is so fragmentary and obscure, that it is hardly possible to reconstruct the exact conditions 
which confronted the architect, or the process by which those conditions had been reached. 
Nevertheless a few facts may be determined with reasonable certainty on the basis of 
existing remains, and by the combination of these results with the literary and epigraphic 
testimony some fairly probable conclusions may be reached as to the influences, both 
topographical and historical, which determined the site and form of the temple of the fifth 
century.! 

Since one of the most striking peculiarities of the Erechtheum is the marked difference 
in level between its eastern and western divisions, our first step may well be to inquire 
whether such a difference already existed, or whether the high terrace is to be regarded as 
essentially a creation of the architect for his eastern cella. 

So far as the lower part of the Erechtheum and the region immediately to the west is 
concerned, the question of the earlier level does not present any special difficulty. Here 
in historic times were certainly situated the ‘“‘tokens”’ (wapripra) of the strife of the gods 
for Attica — the sacred olive of Athena in the Pandroseum and the “‘sea”’ of Poseidon 
with the mark of the trident somewhere in the western part of the Erechtheum itself.? 
Whether these ‘‘tokens’’ were associated with a cult as early as the Mycenaean period 
cannot now be known, though there is nothing inherently improbable in such a supposition, 
but it is clear that later this region possessed a special religious significance and was the cen- 
tre of a group of cults and legends peculiarly and distinctively Athenian.*? Now the nature 
of these ‘‘tokens’’ was such that their mere presence tended to preserve from material 
change the level of the ground about them. It is true that there might have been some 


1 This chapter was already in type when L. B. Holland published his minute and painstaking study of the early 
remains in this part of the Acropolis (A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 1-23, 142-169, 402-434). It has not, therefore, 
proved feasible to discuss his results, or to do much more than insert frequent references to his pages. His carefully 
considered and ingenious reconstruction of the successive periods of terracing and building is admittedly highly con- 
jectural in many particulars, and for that reason it has not seemed best to modify materially the much less detailed 
restoration attempted in this section, which is concerned with these earlier conditions only in so far as they may have 
influenced the position and form of the Erechtheum. It should be pointed out, however, that the views expressed 
here are not fundamentally different from those which underlie Holland’s much more elaborate hypotheses, for we 
agree in holding it probable “that from prehistoric times the site was marked with sacred areas; that these persisted 
with little change down to the time of the Persian conflagration; that they were then rebuilt with practically the same 
locations and sizes as before ... ; and that the last rebuilding, in the second half of the fifth century, still paid 
scrupulous respect to the ancient areas” (I. c., p. 426). 

2 See Ch. I, pp. 169-171, and below, pp. 487, 490-492. There is as yet no clear evidence of the presence of a 
wall in early times in the approximate position of the west wall of the Erechtheum. 

° It is scarcely necessary to cite references in detail for these statements. All the important ancient authorities 
may be found in J.-M., pp. 64 ff., and Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 3-21, 40-93. 


HISTORY 425 


accumulation of soil around the sacred olive in the course of time,! but whatever the origin 
of the “‘sea’”’ and the trident mark, their sacred character could only have been acquired 
when the surface of the rock was exposed, and although they were doubtless early protected 
by an enclosure of some sort and perhaps even brought within a building, they must always 
have remained visible, and therefore at no great depth below the surrounding ground. 
We may accordingly assume that the building of the Erechtheum involved no marked 
departure from the existing level, at least in the western part.2. This level may be fixed 
from the height of the drain in the north wall of the Pandroseum, and from the other early 
remains within that precinct,’ as about 0.17 m. below the top of the stylobate in the North 
Portico (PLates VIII, 1, XI, XV) —that is, about 150.79 m. above the sea,‘ and 0.793 m. 
above the bottom of the lowest step of the North Portico. Whether the elevation of the 
pavement of the Pandroseum above the ground on the north antedates the construction of 
the Erechtheum must be left uncertain, in default of exact evidence as to earlier conditions 
outside.’ In itself there would seem to be much in favor of the theory that thé temenos of the 


“‘tokens’’ was always slightly raised with steps leading up to its entrance, the threshold 
of which appears to be still in place.® 


The approximate boundaries of the precinct of the ‘‘tokens’’ can be determined with 
considerable accuracy.’ On the west the earlier line probably remained unchanged in later 
times (PLatTE I),* since this part of the precinct was obviously unaffected by the build- 
ing of the Erechtheum. On the north the wall of the Pandroseum, which is earlier than 
the Erechtheum and has a different orientation (PLATE I),’ may fairly be assumed to repre- 


1 The tree never seems to have derived much support from the soil or to have flourished greatly, if we can judge 
from the glosses in Hesychius: Hdayxvdos’ édalas eldés te karaxexvdds kal ramrevov &v tH axpowode. "AoTH dala’ Hh & 
akpoToXet, 7 Kadoupevn TayKudos 61a XPayardornTa. 

2 For the reasons just given it is probable that this level was no lower, and but little higher, than that which had 
prevailed here in much earlier times. It is generally supposed that here was the open court of the Mycenaean palace, 
a conjecture which would become almost a certainty, if it were proved that the altar of Zeus Herceus beside the 
ancient olive (see p. 475) occupied the position of the altar in the palace court. Cf. Wachsmuth, Ber. sdchs. Ges., 
XXXIX, 1887, p. 403; Judeich, T'opographie, p. 237. 

3 See Ch. I, pp. 123-127. Though earlier than the Erechtheum these remains are not of great antiquity. The 
clamps are neither swallow-tailed, as in the first Hecatompedon (Wiegand, Poros-Architektur, pp. 3, 121) nor 
Z-shaped, but of the ordinary FH form, and, though smaller, closely resemble the normal clamps of the Erechtheum 
(p. 125). Since the marble blocks show no marks of fire, they probably belong to repairs after the Persian invasion. 

4 Cf. Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl. ['. The stylobate of the North Portico is 150.96 m. above the sea. 
This pavement is some two metres above the rock at the northeast corner of the Pandroseum (148.79 m.), so that 
there would have been sufficient depth of earth for the sacred olive. Farther south and east the depth of earth 
would be lessened by the upward slope of the rock, which, however, nowhere in the western part of the Erechtheum 
attains the height of the pavement. 

6 It is fairly certain that when the north wall of the Acropolis was built, the ground on the inside was much lower 
than it was subsequently, when the general level in this part of the Acropolis was raised to that of the surface about 
the North Portico of the Erechtheum (Kawerau in Cavvadias and Kawerau, cols. 75-76). Whether, however, the 
level of this surface was the same before the Portico was built is unknown. The ground here may have been lowered 
contemporaneously with the filling in along the wall. See also Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 425. 

6 On the remains of this threshold see Ch. I, pp. 120-123. 

7 This precinct would include the ground later occupied by the western part of the Erechtheum as well as the 
Pandroseum. 

8 On the probable western limit of the Pandroseum, see Ch. I, p. 123. 9 On this wall, see Ch. I, pp. 120-123. 


426 THE ERECHTHEUM 


sent the original, or at any rate the post-Persian, boundary. East of its junction with the 
North Portico this wall has totally disappeared, but it is noticeable that, if its direction 
continued unchanged, it must have passed just south of the crypt beneath the North 
Portico, so that the so-called “‘trident marks” then, as later, would have been outside 
the precinct of the ‘‘tokens,” though very possibly close to the entrance and with a sub- 
mural connection with the interior.1 The southern boundary, at least during the fifth and 
later sixth centuries, was formed by the temenos of Cecrops and, farther east, by the wall 
beneath the peristyle of the Hecatompedon.’ As has been already pointed out,’ west of the 
east jamb of the south door of the Erechtheum the stones of this wall are left rough, since 
they were concealed by the terrace of the Cecropium, while east of the door the face of the 
wall, for the short distance before it is hidden by the south wall of the Erechtheum, has 
been given the smooth dressing of an exposed surface. How far east this dressing extended 
it is at present impossible to say, but on the existing evidence we may safely conclude that 
the eastern part of the area of the ‘‘tokens”’ was to some extent an open court. 

That this area was also bounded on the east by a terrace of considerable elevation is 
clearly shown by the following facts. The rock at the southeast corner of the Hecatompe- 
don, on which the single step of its stylobate rested, is 153.23 m. above the sea.* In the 
wall of the Acropolis north and northeast of the Erechtheum the bottom of the courses of 
dressed stone, which must mark approximately the level of the ground when the wall was 
built,® is, on an average, about 0.957 m. below this level,® or about 152.27 m. above the 
sea, that is, about 1.48 m. above the pavement of the Pandroseum (150.79 m.). Whether 
the ground sloped gradually down from the Hecatompedon to the wall, or whether there 
was a lower terrace north of that on which the temple stood, need not be considered for the 
moment; it is sufficient to know that this higher level extended westward at least as far 
as the northeast corner of the Hecatompedon, that is approximately to the line of the east 
wall of the Erechtheum. There is, however, some evidence which suggests that it continued 
farther, and that the line of demarcation between the lower area of the ‘‘tokens” and the 

1 Tf the earlier wall followed approximately the line indicated by the traces left on the foundations of the north 


wall of the Erechtheum (Ch. I, pp. 188-144; Fig. 88), the “trident marks” were certainly outside the precinct. See 
also Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 156 ff.; fig. 12. 

2 Throughout this chapter the old temple south of the Erechtheum will be called the Hecatompedon. Hecatom- 
pedon I and Hecatompedon II will be used only where it seems necessary to distinguish between the earlier and later 
forms of this building. On the probable dates of these two forms, see below, p. 432, note 3. 

3 See Ch. I, p. 136. 

4 For this and the other levels here given see Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl. ['. Their figures are repeated by 
* Dorpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pls. I-III. 

° There is no definite information as to the exact date of the north wall of the Acropolis, but it is certainly earlier 
than the commencement of the Erechtheum. Farther west the interior level has been twice raised since the con- 
struction of the wall, and the latest level corresponds to that around the North Portico (Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 
75). On the construction of the north wall, see, e.g., Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 52; Judeich, Topographie, pp. 193- 
194; D’Ooge, Acropolis, pp. 66-71. 

6 From measurements by B. H. Hill and L. B. Holland. It is a curious coincidence, though apparently without 


special significance, that this level is almost exactly that of the top of the orthostates in the north wall of the Erech- 
theum; see Fig. 7 8. 


HISTORY 427 


higher terrace to the east was very close to that occupied later by the east cross-wall of 
the Erechtheum. Attention has already been called! to the fact that in that part of the 
Acropolis wall north of the eastern half of the Erechtheum only the four upper courses were 
intended to remain visible, while the roughly cut stones and unfinished column drums, 
though above the level of the marble pavement east of the North Portico, were certainly 
concealed. The ground level at the wall northeast of the Erechtheum was, therefore, pre- 
served to the point where the wall turns somewhat abruptly to the northwest, although 
after the completion of the Erechtheum this involved leaving a passage or platform along 
the inner face of the wall some 10-12 metres in length and about 2.25 m. above the marble 
pavement. Such a passage does not appear elsewhere on the Acropolis, and it is difficult 
to see why one should have been constructed here, unless, when the wall was built, either 
the ground here was at the same height as that farther east, or it was desired to bound a 
depressed area, similar to that later covered by the marble pavement (PuaTs I), by a gal- 
lery on the north corresponding to a terrace of about the same height already existing on the 
south.’ 

The probability of the existence of such a terrace in early times is strengthened by an 
examination of conditions farther south. The excavation of the Hecatompedon in 1886 
brought to light within and beneath the temple walls fragments of earlier foundation walls 
and two poros bases, closely resembling those which in Cretan and Mycenaean palaces sup- 
ported the wooden columns about the hearth or in the porticoes (PLATE I). The bases 
appeared to be in situ, and since on other grounds it is likely that the palace of the early 
kings was in this part of the Acropolis,’ it has been generally agreed that here stood one of 
its megara. Whatever the exact nature of this building, it is certain that it was on higher 
ground than the later pavement in the Pandroseum, and but little below the level of the 
Hecatompedon. Unfortunately, exact data as to the discovery of the column bases seem 
to be lacking, and there is no published record of their original orientation and level, so 
that, although they are said to occupy their old position, it does not appear certain that 
they have remained absolutely undisturbed.‘ According to a special survey made in 1923 


1 Ch. I, pp. 16, 18. 

2 The latter supposition is perhaps preferable in view of the traces of early walls within the eastern part of the 
Erechtheum (Ch. I, pp. 138-146). The care taken by the later builders to preserve these walls suggests that they still 
fulfilled an important function as terrace or foundation walls. In either case they imply an elevated area within them. 
On the other hand, there seems no clear evidence for the continuation of this area as far as the Acropolis wall. If it 
were certain that the poros foundation beneath the marble pavement antedated the Erechtheum (Ch. I, p. 15, note 5), 
the existence in early times of a ‘‘theatral area”’ similar to those in Crete would seem to be by no means improbable. 
A detailed reconstruction of this area, as it existed in prehistoric times, and as it was restored, with some alterations, 
after the Persian invasion, has been attempted by Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 151-161, 414-423. 

’ For the remains beneath the Hecatompedon, and for the early palace see Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl. I,’ 
cols. 83, 87-91; J.—M., Praefatio, p. vii; Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. ‘Athena.’ col. 1952; Wachsmuth, Ber. sdchs. Ges., XX XIX, 
1887, pp. 399-405; Judeich, Topographie, pp. 51, 237-238; D’Ooge, Acropolis, pp. 15-17; Collignon, Le Parthénon, 
ed. min., p. 6; Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 161-169. 

4 The lack of complete records as to the conditions under which they were found may be due in part to the fact 
that they were at first believed to be Byzantine or Frankish (Doérpfeld, Ath. Miit., XII, 1887, p. 61). On their present 
position see Dérpfeld in Pauly-Wissowa, s. v. ‘Athena,’ col. 1952: ‘Die zwei Saiulenbasen . . . sind noch an ihrer alten 


428 THE ERECHTHEUM 


by L. B. Holland the top of the rectangular portion of the northern base is now 0.42 m. 
below the euthynteria at the southeast corner of the Erechtheum, which is at the same level 
as the bottom of the stylobate at the southeast corner of the Hecatompedon, while that of 
the southern base is 0.344 m. below the same point. Since it is highly improbable that the 
two bases had not the same level originally, it would seem that one at least has been mis- 
placed, so that it is hazardous to fix precise figures for their early levels from their present 
position. It seems, however, safe to say that the floor of the megaron cannot well have been 
less than 0.35 m. to 0.45 m. below the euthynteria of the Hecatompedon, and may possibly 
have been considerably more. Thus the ground on which this part of the palace stood was 
not more than about 0.60 m.1— if as much — above the level at the north wall of the 
Acropolis in the fifth century B.c. It is hard to believe that so close an agreement between 
this later level and the earlier one on the south, which had long been buried beneath the 
Hecatompedon, is purely fortuitous. Rather it appears to indicate that here, as in the 
precinct of the ‘‘tokens,” old conditions had survived the changes due to the construction 
of the great temple on the south. The lower level had been protected by the presence of its 
sacred relics; it will be seen that a similar religious sanction may have preserved the higher. 

The probable line of demarcation between these two terraces is suggested by the fact 
that the prolongation of the line of the eastern cross-wall of the Erechtheum intersects the 
north wall of the Acropolis very close to the angle where the wall turns to the northwest 
and the high level at the wall ended.? The cross-wall of the Erechtheum bounded the 
high cella of the new temple; it is surely not unreasonable to suppose that the earlier wall 
at this point fulfilled a similar function. In that case the construction of the East Cella of 
the Erechtheum involved a relatively small amount of filling and grading, for over most of 
its area the ground was already within less than a metre of the required height. 

The building of Hecatompedon I above the megaron of the old palace obviously did 
not involve any changes on the site of the Erechtheum. Its architect found the sacred 
precinct containing the “‘tokens” bounded on the south and east by an elevated platform. 
He chose the southern terrace for his new temple, raised his foundation above the old 
level sufficiently to avoid any difficulty with the higher rock of the Acropolis toward the 
Stelle.’ According to the section given by Middleton, Athenian Buildings, pl. 8, XII, the bases were very nearly a 
metre below the top of the euthynteria of the peristyle of the Hecatompedon, and about on a level with the top of the 
orthostates in the west wall of the Erechtheum (PLatr IV), thus coinciding very closely with the height of the later 


platform along the inside of the north wall of the Acropolis; but it is not clear whether this represents the actual 
position of the bases about 1890, or their conjectural level in the palace. 

1 That is, 0.957 m.—0.85 m. This is about the difference in level at Tiryns between the propylon leading from 
the outer to the inner court (25.82 m.) and the threshold of the megaron (26.40 m.). See the plans by Dérpfeld in 
Schliemann, Tiryns, pls. II (plan), III (section). The levels as given on the plan differ slightly from those on the 
section. The latter are cited here. 

2 The prolongation of the wall of the Erechtheum intersects the Acropolis wall almost exactly at the angle. The 
prolongation of the line of the pronaos of Hecatompedon I reaches the wall slightly east of the angle. It coincides 
very nearly with the west face of the bit of early polygonal wall shown in Piatr I. This might be assumed to repre- 
sent the boundary of the earlier upper terrace but for the evidence already presented (Ch. I, p. 147) that the founda- 
tions of the cross-wall of the Erechtheum were probably formed by the lower courses of an existing primitive wall. 


HISTORY 429 


southeast, and aligned the northeast corner of his cella with the wall bounding on the east 
the temenos below; only the pronaos extended toward the east beyond this line. The 
position suggests a close relation between the temple and the cults on the lower ground to 
the north. The remains of early walls (PLAT# I) indicate that the palace extended farther 
north than Hecatompedon I,! and if, as is very probable, the terrace of the Cecropium also 
antedates that temple,’ the construction of the peristyle of Hecatompedon II did not in- 
volve any material encroachment upon the lower terrace or, apparently, any essential 
modification of conditions there. At the east, however, the new portico was on a higher 
level * than that which has seemed probable for the terrace on the site of the East Cella 
of the Erechtheum, but such evidence as exists is against any regrading along the eastern 
part of the north side of the peristyle,4 and there is some reason, as will be shown later 
(p. 444), for believing that the stylobate was raised above the adjoining ground on this 
side, although the elevation here was naturally much less than it was farther west. 

The topographical evidence, therefore, leads to the conclusion that the difference in 
level between the divisions of the Erechtheum was not a creation of its architect, but had 
long existed in very similar form and was only adapted with much skill to the new building. 
The earlier walls which have left their traces inside the north and east foundations of the 
Erechtheum apparently supported or enclosed the eastern terrace,’ but it remains uncertain 
whether the higher level extended to the wall of the Acropolis or was even then broken by 
the sunken area east of the later North Portico, although the latter alternative is more 
probable. For further information as to the conditions which prevailed here before the 
Erechtheum was built, it is necessary to turn to other sources, both literary and epigraphi- 
cal; but before examining their evidence it will be convenient to consider briefly the value 
of an early monument which has played a somewhat prominent part in recent discussion. 

Among the mass of fragments in poros, which were found chiefly in the so-called ‘“‘ Tyran- 
nenschutt’’ south and east of the Parthenon,° were parts of a pediment with a scene in relief 
which has frequently been connected with this region of the Acropolis.’ The fragments 


1 See Holland, A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 166, fig. 18. His reconstruction of the position of the palace must be 
essentially correct. 

2 East of the south door in the Erechtheum the north foundation of the peristyle was visible when it was built; 
west of that point it was hidden (p. 136). There seems no reason for concealing only part of the foundation by a new 
terrace, and the conclusion is warranted that this terrace already existed, although it may have been graded up to 
the level of the new euthynteria, and its limits on the south somewhat curtailed. If the terrace is earlier than Heca- 
tompedon II, it may fairly be presumed to antedate Hecatompedon I, since, although the foundations of that temple 
were certainly concealed, there is nothing in its situation to call for the construction of so wide a terrace on the north. 

3 Dorpfeld, Ath. Miti., XI, 1886, p. 338; Wiegand, Poros-Architektur, p. 115; Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl. Re 

4 This evidence is furnished by the traces of earlier construction preserved in the foundations of the east wall of 
the Erechtheum (Ch. I, pp. 144-146). See also Holland, lJ. c., pp. 16-23, 409-414. 

5 See Ch. I, pp. 143 f., 145 f. 

6 On the “Tyrannenschutt”’ see Dickins, Catalogue, p. 9, where the name was first used; Heberdey, Poros- 
skulptur, pp. 3 ff., where the nature and origin of this filling is fully discussed. 

7 Dickins, Catalogue, pp. 69 ff. The fragments were published by Wiegand (Poros-Architektur, pp. 197 ff., pl. 
XIV). The restoration and significance of the relief have been fully discussed, first by Miss J. E. Harrison (Primitive 


430 THE ERECHTHEUM 


preserved constitute less than half of the original relief. The left. corner is missing and also 
the greater part of the right end, while the fragments that remain are much broken and 
display many gaps. The style of the sculpture places this relief among the earlier of the 
poros works,! and very probably before the groups usually assigned to the pediments of 
Hecatompedon I. In the background on the left is a low wall above which appear the 
branches of an olive tree. The right end of the wall abuts on a building, which fills the rest 
of the preserved portion, and extends a little beyond the apex of the pediment, thus occu- 
pying the centre of the scene. This building is low, short, with a hipped (not gable) roof 
and either a doorway or a portico in front. In the foreground at the left, in front of the 
low wall, is a man facing toward the right (only the left leg is preserved); in the doorway, 
or portico, stands a woman who originally carried some object on her head, perhaps a 
hydria, basket, or cista; and on either side of her was apparently another woman carrying 
a similar object. There is no indication of a difference of level between the building and 
the wall behind it, though it is possible that the olive tree is on lower ground. 

Until recently there has been very general agreement that this relief represented a 
scene near the sacred olive tree in the Pandroseum — for example the procession of the 
Arrephori, — and that the building was an early temple, or perhaps a propylon, in this 
neighborhood. Against such an interpretation, however, weighty objections have been 
urged by Buschor.? He argues forcibly that this theory attributes to the relief character- 
istics quite foreign to the monuments of its period. Apart from other unusual features, a 
faithful reproduction of a definitely localized scene of contemporary life is unexampled in 
Greek archaic art. Moreover, all the details of the design find their closest analogies and 
most natural explanation in the series of early vases showing Achilles lying in wait for 
Troilus. In his opinion the building is a well-house whither Polyxena and the other Trojan 
maidens have come to fill their hydriae. The wall and trees, which probably appeared 
also on the other side of the building, mark the scene as occurring at the sacred grove of 
Apollo. The man on the left is Troilus, approaching with his horses; in the missing right 
half of the pediment was Achilles in ambush. If this view is correct, as seems highly prob- 


Athens as described by Thucydides, p. 56, fig. 20), and later by Petersen (Burgiempel, pp. 21-40, fig. 2; Athen, pp. 
24 ff., fig. 16; Klio, IX, 1909, p. 234), Heberdey (Porosskulpiur, pp. 16-18, fig. 13, pl. II, with a full bibliography), 
and Buschor (Ath. Mitt., XXX XVII, 1922, pp. 81-91, pl. VI). The proposed restorations differ in details, such as 
the spacing of the fragments of the building and the position of the free-standing female figure in relation to the por- 
tico, but these variations do not affect materially the topographical interpretation of the relief , since those who place 
the scene on the Acropolis agree that the enclosure containing the olive tree is behind the building and that the latter 
is seen from the side, even though the entrance, according to a convention sometimes found on early vases, is repre- 
sented en face rather than in profile. 

* On the date cf. Dickins, Catalogue, pp. 17, 18, and especially Heberdey, op. cit., pp. 220-228. He would assign 
it to about 600 B.c. 

2 Ath. Mitt., XXXXVII, 1922, pp. 81-91, pl. VI. Before Buschor only Wiegand and Dickins seem to have 
definitely rejected the topographical interpretation. The former (op. cit., p. 204) connected the scene with the story 
of Troilus, and the latter (op. cit., p. 71) also considered the building a well-house, but suggested that the relief repre- 
sented the rape of Athenian maidens at the Enneacrunus by the Pelasgians. Neither writer adduced any arguments 
in support of his view. 


HISTORY 431 


able, we may at once erase the pediment from the list of sources for the pre-Pisistratean 
topography of the Acropolis. Even if the older interpretation be preferred, the relief con- 
tributes little or nothing that could not be inferred from existing remains or other sources. 
Since the fundamental questions, which side of the Pandroseum is represented and conse- 
quently what is the identity of the building, admit of no definite answer,! the relief cannot 
be used to prove the presence of any specific structure, and we certainly do not need its 
evidence to convince us that the sacred olive tree was in an enclosure, that this enclosure 
probably had an entrance portico, or that a shrine probably existed near the ‘‘tokens”’ 
from very early times.’ 

We may now examine the literary and epigraphical evidence relating to the early his- 
tory of this part of the Acropolis, bearing in mind that this inquiry is not concerned with 
the origin, meaning, and development of Athenian cults or legends, except as they may have 
affected the appearance of the site at successive periods and thus contributed to produce 
the conditions which confronted the builders of the Erechtheum. Limited by these 
considerations the written records are neither very abundant nor, unfortunately, very 
definite. 

Two passages in Homer contain the earliest references to Erechtheus. In the Odyssey 
(VII, 80-81), Athena, after conducting Odysseus to the palace of Alcinous, left Scheria, 


ixeto 6° és Mapaddva kal evpvayuayv ’AOnrnr, 


dbve 6’ “Epex@jos muxivov dopov. 


1 That the west side of the Pandroseum is represented seems very improbable, for in that case a building, whether 
temple or portico, facing south at the southwest corner of the Pandroseum, if on the lower level, would have almost 
abutted on the terrace of the old palace or the Cecropium, while if it were on the terrace, it would have been above 
the wall enclosing the olive tree. If we turn to the east, it is unlikely that the procession is passing along the upper 
terrace, since the building must then be situated either in the northwest corner of the terrace itself or else above the 
later paved area, thus facing north. For a building in this position there is no evidence, nor indeed any reasonable 
explanation. It therefore becomes necessary to suppose that the procession is passing between the terrace and the 
enclosure with the ‘‘tokens’’ — not a very intelligible route, — and that the building is a predecessor of the North 
Portico. Such an interpretation is perhaps possible, but cannot be considered wholly satisfactory, especially as fewer 
difficulties present themselves on either the north or the south side. On the south, the wall occupies approximately 
the place of the later wall west of the Porch of the Maidens, and the building is either an early temple on the site of 
the East Cella of the Erechtheum or, according to the attractive suggestion of Fougéres (R. Et. Gr., XXXII, 1919, 
p. 212), an early entrance to the Cecropium. If the view is from the north, the wall is the northern boundary of the 
Pandroseum and the building the shrine of Pandrosus with its entrance at the west. It is evident that on any theory 
the topographical interpretation depends largely on more or less probable hypotheses, for which in general little inde- 
pendent evidence can be adduced. 

2 It may be well to add a brief note on the temple to which this relief belonged, since it also has been connected 
by Heberdey with the site of the Erechtheum. According to his careful investigations (Porosskulptur, pp. 22, 143— 
153, 174-178), the tympanum of the relief had a height of ca. 0.685 m., a length of ca. 5.70 m. and a slope of 6: 25; 
while the temple itself was about 8.30 m. wide, measured on the cornice, and at least 10.50 m. long. He restored the 
temple with 11 triglyphs on the front and 21 on the sides — a natural ratio, — and proposed to place it obliquely 
across the west part of the Erechtheum, with the southeast corner on a bed of dressed rock in the southwest angle of 
the East Cella of the Erechtheum (cf. Ch. I, pp. 10-12; Piate II; Fig. 100, near c) and the front toward the northwest, 
thus bringing the crypt with the ‘‘trident marks” to the left of the entrance in the portico (op. cit., pp. 174-178). The 
discovery of the remains of earlier walls within the Erechtheum across the lines which the walls of Heberdey’s temple 
must have occupied has rendered this position impossible, and in view of Buschor’s interpretation of the relief, any 
connection of the temple with the Erechtheum seems very doubtful. 


432 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In the Catalogue of the Ships (Iliad, II, 546-551) the Athenians are thus described: 


Ot 6° dp’ “AOnvas etxov, évktipevov TTOALEOpor, 
Sfuov "EpexOjos weyadnropos, bv ToT’ *AOnvn 
OpéeWe, Ards Ovyarnp, — Téxe 5€ Feldwpos apovpa, — 
xad 8° év “AOnvys eioev €@ ev love vn@: 

évOa 5€é pv ravpouor Kal apveots tAaovrat 


kodpot “AOnvaiwy mepiTedomevwy EVLAUTOV. 


It is fairly obvious that in these two passages the point of view is not the same, even if 
there is no absolute contradiction. In the first Athena enters the house of Erechtheus as 
she might — and in fact does in disguise — enter the house of Odysseus or Alcinous,}! 
though with this not unimportant difference that her arrival in Athens is entirely un- 
motivated, and we speedily find her again in Scheria advancing the interests of her favorite. 
Certainly the text contains no intimation that Erechtheus possesses any divinity or any 
peculiar association with Athena; rather it suggests that he is the ruling king, or, if this be 
deemed too flagrant a departure from Greek legendary chronology, the founder or most 
noted occupant of the royal palace. Since the presence of an early palace is shown by the 
excavations, these verses, which merely serve to connect with it the name of Erechtheus, 
add nothing to our topographical knowledge. 

In the second passage the situation is very different. Athens is here the realm (6jyos) 
of Erechtheus, who is no ordinary king, living in his palace, but the son of the earth, foster- 
child of Athena, placed by her in her own temple, and there honored with annual sacrifices 
by the Athenian youth. The essential point for the present inquiry is the definite mention 
of a temple of Athena in which Erechtheus finds a permanent abode, and the importance of 
the statement remains the same whether the lines themselves belong to an early form of the 
poem, or are, as is perhaps more probable, an Athenian interpolation of the sixth century.’ 
On the former supposition it is clear that they testify to the existence of a temple of Athena 
and the cult therein of Erechtheus long before the date commonly assigned to the first 
Hecatompedon.* If, however, they are late, their evidential value is not greatly altered, 
since they show that both the connection in cult and the temple where the two divinities 


1 Cf., e.g., Odyssey, II, 394, and VI, 13. 

* For the conflicting views as to the date of these Homeric passages, ef., e.g., Scott, Cl. Phil., VI, pp. 424-426 
(part of the original poem); Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 6-11 (both passages late interpolations, probably Pisistratean). 

* The exact dates of the construction of Hecatompedon I and of its transformation by the addition of the peri- 
style need not be considered here. It is sufficient for this discussion that the weight of argument at present warrants 
the belief that the original building was erected early in the sixth century B.c., while the enlargement may be reason- 
ably attributed to the last years of Pisistratus or to the reign of his sons. On these dates see Heberdey, Porosskulptur, 
p. 226; Frickenhaus, Tiryns, I, pp. 108-111, where the earlier literature is collected. Dorpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 
1919, p. 3, challenges the accepted chronology, and dates both the early Attic vases and the poros sculptures early in 
the first millennium, and thus apparently places Hecatompedon I in the ninth century, although he agrees that the 
peristyle is Pisistratean. His proofs for this new dating have not yet appeared. For a criticism of this view, see 
Hondius, Novae inscriptiones atticae, p. 78. 


HISTORY 433 


were honored could be attributed to a remote past without seeming to the Athenians of 
the sixth century to involve any flagrant anachronism. Now, as Michaelis and Collignon 
have pointed out,! no such antiquity could be predicated of the relatively new Hecatom- 
pedon in the time of Pisistratus or of his sons. Consequently the passage in the J liad, on 
any theory of its date, may fairly be cited to prove that for some time before the sixth 
century there had been on the Acropolis a temple of Athena, in which the goddess was be- 
lieved to harbor another divinity, Erechtheus. Whether this early temple gave place to 
the Hecatompedon, or continued to exist beside it, must be determined — if determination 
be possible — from other evidence.” 

In this connection the question of the early cult-statues of Athena assumes a certain 
significance. It has long been recognized that during the sixth century the goddess appears 
in Attic art under two distinct aspects. In one she is represented as the warrior, standing 
or even hurrying forward, with the shield on her arm and brandishing her spear; in the other 
she sits peacefully on her throne, her armor laid aside, holding a phiale in her outstretched 
right hand.’ Without attempting to determine to which type is to be assigned the priority,' 
it is natural to suppose that one is derived from the statue which belonged to the early 
temple, known from the Jliad, while the other owes its origin to the new image made for 
the large temple of Athena, which there is good reason to believe was erected in the sixth 
century. The former, then, must be the dpyatov &yadua or é50s, of olive wood, which was 
believed to have fallen from heaven and to have been dedicated on the Acropolis by Cecrops 
or Erichthonius; on which the companions of Cylon relied for safety; which was carried 
away by the Athenians at the time of the Persian invasion; and for which, if we may judge 
from the Chandler inscription, the new Erechtheum was intended to be the sanctuary.° 
The other statue apparently was left on the Acropolis in 480 B.c., and it is a plausible con- 
jecture of Petersen that its presence in the Hecatompedon led the panic-stricken Athenians 
on the capture of the Acropolis by the Persians to seek refuge in the yéyapor of that temple 


1 Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 6; Collignon, Le Parthénon, ed. min., pp. 18-19. Of course this argument 
would fail, if Dérpfeld should prove his early date for the erection of the Hecatompedon. 

* The accounts of the massacre of the partisans of Cylon after his unsuccessful attempt to seize the Acropolis 
yield no information. Thucydides (I, 126) only refers to the altar at which the fugitives sought refuge; both Herodo- 
tus (V, 71) and Plutarch (Solon, 12) mention the statue of the goddess, and this may be interpreted to imply the pres- 
ence of a shrine or temple. There is, however, nothing in any of the statements to show that their authors had an 
exact knowledge of conditions on the Acropolis at such a remote time. Cf. Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, p. 93, note. 

’ On these types see, e. g., O. Jahn, De antiquissimis Minervae simulacris; E. Gerhard, Akademische Abhandlungen, 
I, p. 255; A. Furtwangler, in Roscher’s Lexikon, s.v. ‘Athena’; more recent discussions by E. Petersen, Burgtempel, 
pp. 40-60; Klio, IX, 1909, pp. 242-247; A. Frickenhaus, Ath. Mitt., XX XIII, 1908, pp. 25 ff.; Tiryns, I, p. 110; 
G. von Brauchitsch, Die Panathendischen Preisamphoren, pp. 78-79, 95, 167-177. 

4 Each type has been claimed as the earlier, or even as the only one existing on the Acropolis in the sixth century, 
but the latest examinations of the evidence by Von Brauchitsch and Frickenhaus point to the probability that the 
warrior type was introduced by Pisistratus. It is not necessary to consider the question here, since all that is material 
to the present discussion is the existence of the two types in the sixth century and their possible connection with two 
temples on the Acropolis. 

5 See the authorities cited in J.-M., p. 68, notes 36, 36*; Herodotus, V, 71; Plutarch, Solon, 12. Cf. also Ch. 
IV, Inscription II, 1. 1, & ha 76 dpxatov &yadua; Commentary, p. 298, and below, pp. 456 ff. 


434 THE ERECHTHEUM 


rather than on the steps of the great altar.1 The presence of two statues connected with 
the cult of Athena 2 is easily understood if there were at the same time two temples, while, 
if the Hecatompedon was built to replace the older temple and to house the old image, the 
need for a new statue is not so apparent. Yet, although these facts are thoroughly consist- 
ent with the survival of the Homeric temple after the construction of the Hecatompedon, 
and indeed render that survival probable,’ the argument cannot be considered wholly con- 
clusive, since it is possible, though not very probable, that both statues stood together in 
the new temple,‘ in spite of the strongly divergent conceptions of the nature of the goddess 


which they represented. 

The probability of the survival of the earlier temple would be very greatly strengthened, 
if we could be sure that another ancient statement referred to a date as early as 506 B.c. 
The scholium to Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 273, reads in part as follows: Té&v pera KXeope- 
vous ’Edevotva karacxovtwr ’APnvator ras oikias Karéoxapay Kal Tas ovoias eOnuevoav, a’rav de 
bavarov éndicarto. Kal avaypawartes és oThdAnv Xadkhy eornoay év TONE Tapa TOV apxXatoy vEewr. 
The wording of the last clause certainly follows closely the terminology of the Attic in- 
scriptions, and there is no difficulty in admitting that the ultimate source of this statement 
is the copy of the decree in the collection of Craterus.° If this copy has preserved the lan- 
euage of the original decree of the sixth century, it follows that there was then on the 
Acropolis a building officially known as 6 dpxatos vews, and it is hard to see how at that time 
this name could have been given to the Hecatompedon. Even on the very doubtful hy- 
pothesis that the tyrants had begun the construction of a great poros temple on the site 
of the later Parthenon, the building could not have advanced far beyond the lower steps 
of the crepis and there could be no need of referring to the complete temple (if it were then 


1 Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 12; cf. Herodotus, VIII, 53. 

2 That the two statues were both connected with the cult seems clear from the black-figured lecythi cited by 
Frickenhaus (Tiryns, I, p. 110, note 1), on which both the warlike Athena and the seated Athena with the phiale are 
depicted between two columns adorned with branches on which sit owls. 

3 The situation on the Acropolis in the sixth century would be analogous to that which existed later in the pre- 
cinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus, where there were two temples and two images of the god, the old and the new (Pau- 
sanias, I, 20, 3). 

4 It is doubtful whether an example can be cited for the existence of two statues of the same divinity, having such 
widely divergent characteristics, in one temple, where both were honored with sacrifices. Votive statues beside a cult- 
statue, or those temples which in Roman times had become little more than museums, are obviously in quite different 
categories. It is true that in the middle of the fourth century B.c. the precinct of Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis 
contained two statues, 76 é0s 76 dpxatov and 76 dyahua 76 dpOov (cf., e.g., [.G., II, 751, referring to 345/4 B.c. and the 
other inscriptions cited J.—M., p. 49, note 42*), but there is no evidence that both were in the same room. Nor is the 
case of the Heraeum at Argos (Frickenhaus, Tiryns, I, p. 110) a wholly satisfactory parallel. That temple contained 
in addition to the chryselephantine Hera of Polyclitus two ancient images (Pausanias, II, 17, 5), one on a column, 
the other of wood. There is nothing to show that either had been the cult-statue of the old temple, burned in 423 B.c.; 
indeed one tradition asserted that the wooden statue had only been brought to the Heraeum on the destruction of 
Tiryns by the Argives in 468 B.c., so that according to this theory it was merely a valuable prize of war. It is true 
that another, and probably older, tradition associated this statue with the foundation of the Heraeum, but even so it is 
not characterized as an object of special cult; cf. Robert, Hermes, LV, 1920, pp. 373-387. 

* On Craterus see Wilamowitz, Aus Kydathen, pp. 69-71; Krech, De Crateri nducparwv ovvaywyf; B. Keil, Hermes, 
XXX, 1895, pp. 214-219; Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. ‘Krateros I.’ 


HISTORY 435 


the only temple of Athena on the Acropolis) as épxatos in order to avoid ambiguity in 
designating the position of the stele.' Moreover, the inscription of 485/4 B.c., to be dis- 
cussed later, unless it has been almost universally misunderstood, shows that the official 
title of the large temple was the Hecatompedon, which would have been at least as definite 
a mark of location as the term employed. Therefore, if we have the original wording of the 
decree, the reasonable interpretation is that of Michaelis and Petersen,’ that 6 dpxatos vews 
refers to the old Homeric temple in contradistinction to the Hecatompedon. There is, 
however, no certainty that Craterus had before him the stele of the sixth century. Indeed 
there is little probability that it survived the sack of the Acropolis by the Persians, espe- 
cially as the Athenian exiles who accompanied Xerxes had every interest in destroying a 
document by which their party stood condemned. The important words, therefore, may 
well have been copied from the decree as restored after 479 B.c., in which the clause desig- 
nating the position of the stele would not necessarily repeat the original wording but would 
more probably be couched in the phraseology of the day. In that case this decree takes its 
place among the other documents of the fifth century, and the words dpyatos vews must 
be interpreted according to the post-Persian usage and cannot be regarded as reflecting 
conditions in the time of Cleisthenes. 

For further information about the temples on the Acropolis before the Persian invasion, 
it is necessary to consult Herodotus and the so-called ‘‘Hecatompedon inscription’’ of 
485/4 B.c. The former in his references to the Acropolis usually prefers the general term 
ro tpov, even where a definite designation might be expected,* but in four passages he be- 
comes more specific.’ 

(1) In V, 72, is the account of the occupation of the Acropolis by Cleomenes, king of 
Sparta, and Isagoras in an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the reforms of Cleisthenes: 

’"Emeredéero 6¢€ TH KXeopévet 7 dnun: ws yap aveBn és THY akpodToAW péAAWY 67 a’THY KaTATXNELY, 
Hue és TO AOuTOV THs Geod ws mpocepewy, 7 S& ipein eEavacraca ex Tod Opdvov, Tplv 7} Tas Oipas avTov 
dpetwar, etre ‘“& Eetve Aaxedatporie, TAA XwpeL unde Eorh és TO ipdv: ob Yap DeutTov Awpredor wapLévar 
evOadra.”’ 6 d€ ete ‘ & ybvat, AX’ ot Awpreds eiut adr’ ’Axatds.”’ 

(2) In V, 77, the Athenians after their victory over the Boeotians and Chalcidians hung 
up on the Acropolis the fetters with which they had bound their prisoners: Tas 6€ édas 
abrav, & rior ee5€éaTo, avexpeuacay és TI akpoToAL: ai wep Ere Kal és Ewe NOaY TEpLeodoaL, KPEMapEV AL 


éx Terxéwy TepiTeprevo eva Tupi bd TOD Mybov, avriov 5€ Tod weyapou TOD mpods EoTEpHY TETPALLMEVOL. 


1 See on this point Milchhéfer, Ueber die alten Burgheiligthtimer in Athen, p. 21. 

2 Michaelis, Jb. Arch. J., XVII, 1902, p. 11; Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 38. 

3 Thus in VIII, 41, we are simply told that the guardian serpent of the Acropolis lived & 76 ipg, though Eusta- 
thius (ad Hom. Od., I, 356) gives the place as & 76 ve ris Hodd5os, and Hesychius (s.v., oixovpdy dp) as & TO iepS 
rod ‘Epexdéws. On this use of ips for the sanctuary on the Acropolis, see Milchhéfer, Ueber die alten Burgheiligthiimer 
in Athen, p. 18. 

4 The passages in Herodotus have been frequently cited. They are discussed with some fullness by Milchhéfer, 
Ueber die alten Burgheiligthtimer in Athen, pp. 18 ff.; Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 7 ff.; Petersen, Burg- 
tempel, pp. 11-14; Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 5, 6, 12. 


436 THE ERECHTHEUM 


(3) In VIII, 53, the capture of the Acropolis by the Persians is described: ‘Qs 6é etdov 
abrods évaBeBnkoras of ’APnvator éxl THY axpomodw, ot wey EppiTTeEor éwuTovs KATA TOU TELKEOS KATW 
kal drepbelpovro, ot b€ és TO peyapov KaTépevyov. Tav dé Tlepoéwy of avaBeBnkores mp@rov pev éTpa- 
rovro mpos Tas Tis, Tabras 5& dvolEavres Tos ikéras éPovevoy: Errel bé oft TAVTES KATETTPWYTO, TO 
ipdv oudnoavtTes everpnoay Tacay TV aKpoTodW. 

(4) In VIII, 55, after saying that Xerxes commanded the Athenian exiles to sacrifice 
on the Acropolis, Herodotus continues: Tod d€ eivexey rodTwr éreuvnobnv, dpaow. tote &Y TH 
axporoXt TabTn ’Epexbéos rod ynvyevéos Aeyouevou eivat vnds, €v TH €Aaln TE kal Oadacoa ev, TA AOYOS 
rapa ’AOnvaiwy Hocedéwvd te kal ’AOnvainv épicavras mepl THs xwpns wapTipia PécOar. TalTny av 
tiv édainy dua TS GAdrAw ip xaréraBe eurpnoOfvar brd rav BapBapwv- devrépy d€ Nueépn aro THS 
éumphowos ’APnvatwr of Obew bad Bacudéos Kedevdpevor @s avéBnoav és TO ipov, wpeov Bracrov €k TOU 
OTEAEXEOS OTOY TE THXVALOY avadedpayynKOTa. 

We have here four distinct terms (1) 76 dédurov rijs O00; (2) 7d wéyapov ro mpds eorepny 
rerpappevov; (3) To péyapoy, with no qualification or explanation; and (4) an ’Epex@éos vnés, 
containing the ‘‘tokens”’ of the contest of Athena and Poseidon. Only in the last case is 
sufficient information given to fix definitely the location. The olive tree was certainly in 
the region immediately west of the Erechtheum, which was later known as the Pandroseum, 
and the testimony of Pausanias proves that the ‘‘sea’’ was somewhere in the western part 
of the Erechtheum itself. It is evident then that the vnos of Erechtheus in Herodotus in- 
cludes not only part of the site of the later building, but also the ground to the west. That 
vnos is used in a general sense is also clear, for there is as little probability that the olive was 
beneath a roof as that the ‘‘sea”’ was entirely uncovered.2. Of the size and orientation of 
the temple of Erechtheus nothing is definitely known or can be inferred from this passage, 
which is of value chiefly as furnishing positive evidence for the existence of a building 
which would otherwise have been only a probable conjecture. 

There is, however, one topographical conclusion which may be tentatively drawn from the 
words of Herodotus. In spite of the Homeric reminiscences in ynyevéos and in the general 
sense given to vyés,* there is no hint that Athena has any share in this temple of Erech- 
theus. We may fairly argue that, if the earliest temple of the goddess was still standing, 
it did not occupy a site on the lower level of the ywapripia, but that this region belonged 
to Erechtheus, though it was included in 76 ipdv, the sacred precinct of Athena. Erechtheus 
may still be worshipped within the sanctuary of Athena, but in the time of Herodotus he 
was apparently not housed in her temple, but had his own shrine. On the position of this 


* On the position of the olive tree see Philochorus, Frg. 146 (below, pp. 474 f.); Apollodorus, III, 178: ’A@nva.. . 
epirevoer ehaiay 7 viv & 7G Mavdpocety deixvutar. For the “sea,” see Ch. 1, pp. 169-171, and below, pp. 487, 491 f., also 
Pausanias, I, 26, 5. 

> Furtwingler (Masterpieces, p. 416, note 9) suggested reading onxés for vnos, in accordance with the parallel 
passage (Dionysius Halic., Ant. Rom. Exc. XIV, 2) &... ’Epexdés 7 onxG. This emendation undoubtedly clarifies 


the meaning of the passage, but the new text is hardly so certain that it can be safely used to determine conditions 
in 480 B.c. 


* Cf. Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 18; Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I ., XVII, 1902, p. 6. 


HISTORY 437 


shrine in relation to the temple, or temples, of the goddess Herodotus furnishes no infor- 
mation whatsoever.! 

Turning now to the other three passages we find merely general terms, devoid of special 
topographical or historical significance, which can be given precise definition only by the 
aid of other information about conditions on the Acropolis. So far as the two péyapa 
are concerned, a probable interpretation offers no great difficulty and has given rise to but 
little discussion. The one in which the terrified Athenians sought sanctuary and where 
they were massacred by the Persians can hardly be anything else than the cella, facing 
east, of the Hecatompedon, which was certainly at that time the largest sacred building on 
the Acropolis, and the most natural refuge for the fugitives, especially if it still retained 
its statue of Athena.’ If this be admitted, it is natural to see in the ‘‘uéyapor facing the 
west’ the rear room of the same building, though this interpretation must be received with 
caution, since it refers to a landmark of the writer’s own time and not to the sixth century.’ 
It is in any case too vague an expression to be used as proof positive of the existence of the 
Hecatompedon in the middle of the fifth century. 

There remains the &év7ov, and it is on the meaning of this word that the controversy as 
to the evidence of Herodotus concerning the pre-Persian temples of Athena turns. Is the 
aéurov the same as the péyapor, or is it the cella of the Homeric temple, which would thus 
be proved to have been in use after the completion of the Hecatompedon? The word itself 
is not conclusive, since its use here is plainly due to the nature of the story, — the attempt 
of King Cleomenes to penetrate into a part of the sanctuary (the priestess bars him from 
the ipov) from which Dorians were excluded. It might, of course, be applied to the cella 
of any temple to which there was restricted access, and in describing the mission of the 
Athenians to Delphi, Herodotus refers to the hall of the oracle indifferently as wéyapov and 
aédurov.* It follows, therefore, that there is no obstacle, so far as the language is concerned, 
to identifying the dévrov, which Cleomenes sought to enter, with the uéyapov in which the 

1 The close connection of Athena and Erechtheus is emphasized in the requirement of the Athenians that the 
Epidaurians should bring yearly sacrifices to Athena Polias and Erechtheus in return for the sacred olive wood, granted 
them for the statues of Damia and Auxesia (Herodotus, V, 82). If the sacred olive tree of Athena was in the temenos 
of Erechtheus, the reason for the double sacrifice is very obvious. 

2 See above, p. 433. Even if the older temple were still standing, its smaller size and the absence of the ancient 
image would militate against its choice as a refuge. 

3 The wall on which the chains were hung would be the west face of a terrace wall, now missing, which supported 
the earth covering the west foundation of the peristyle of the Hecatompedon. This foundation, like that on the north, 
is rough and must have been concealed (cf. Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 6, 38). G. Korte, Gétt. gel. Anz., 
1909, p. 844, note, suggests that this yéyapor is the west room of the Parthenon and that the fetters hung from the east 
wall of the precinct of Artemis Brauronia. It seems doubtful whether Herodotus would have described in this way a 
part of a temple which was still unfinished when he left Athens, if his departure is correctly dated about 443 B.c. 
J. W. White, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., VI, 1895, p. 22, note 4, argues that the old Erechtheum is meant, on the ground 
that “by puéyapov Herodotus refers to the cella of a temple where is established the worship of a god.”” This seems 


possible, but not necessary. 
4 In VII, 140, on the arrival of the Athenians: — Kai odu rocnoact repi 70 ipov Ta vomefoueva, ws és TO Meyapor Eveh- 


Oovres itovro, xpG % Luin x. t. .; but when they return to the Pythia as suppliants (141), they say “4 ob rou &aimev & Tod 
Gdbrov, add’ adrod ride wereouer Eor’ dv Kal TeANevTHowper.”” In I, 47, the ambassadors of Croesus also come és 76 wéyapov 


to consult the oracle. 


438 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Athenians took refuge. It does not follow, however, that, because the terms can denote the 
same room, they therefore must do so, when they are used in entirely different contexts at 
widely separated points in the narrative. Nor is the use of the definite article in both 
passages (1) and (3) decisive. Indeed so far as the yéyapov is concerned we have the direct 
testimony of Herodotus that there were at least two on the Acropolis, since, when a precise 
indication of locality is required, he defines the yéyapov meant by adding 16 mpos éomépny 
rerpappévov. While, therefore, the language of Herodotus is perfectly intelligible if there was 
only one temple of Athena on the Acropolis, it is equally intelligible if there were two, — 
the Homeric temple with the 4évrov in which was the old statue, and the Hecatompedon 
with its two péyapa. In other words, Herodotus is not writing with special reference to par- 
ticular buildings which must be given their correct names and accurately distinguished from 
their neighbors. He makes no use of the official terminology as it appears in the contem- 
porary inscriptions; he does not mention the apxatos vews, the Hecatompedon, or the 
émucbbdou0s, and even the ’Epexféos vnés, with its loose use of vnés, can hardly be official, 
though it may preserve a popular designation. As Keil has pointed out,’ Herodotus has 
non-Athenians chiefly in view, for whom the details of the topography of the Acropolis and 
the identity of its buildings were unessential. The incidents are the important points, and 
they are localized so far as is necessary to give them their full value without overloading 
them with superfluous and distracting minutiae. Cleomenes receives a divine warning in 
the words of the priestess when he attempts to penetrate és rd ddvrov ris beod, and there is 
no need of more precise localization to convey the nature of his attempt. The Athenians 
flee és 76 wéyapov, and the word without any further definition is quite sufficient to empha- 
size the sacrilege of the Persians in killing the suppliants. Even the apparent precision in 
marking the position of the Chalcidian fetters is rather a vivid personal touch than an ac- 
curate topographical indication. In view of these considerations it seems useless to seek 
from Herodotus an answer to the question as to the survival of the earlier temple. He is 
equally easy to interpret whether there was only one temple of Athena on the Acropolis, 
or two, or even more. 

The epigraphical evidence for pre-Persian conditions is confined to the fragmentary 
inscription of 485/4 B.c.2. This document was carefully engraved on two of the marble 
metopes which had been removed from Hecatompedon I when it was reconstructed upon 
the addition of the peristyle, and contained regulations for the conduct of the officials and 


1 B. Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, p. 91, note 1. 

? For the text of this inscription see J. G., I, Suppl., 18, 19, pp. 137-139 =I, 3, 4; Lolling, ’A@nva, II, 1890, pp. 
627 ff. Cf. also on the better preserved metope and the passages concerning the “Old Temple,” W. Dorpfeld, Ath. 
Miti., XV, 1890, pp. 420-439; Dittenberger, Hermes, XXVI, 1891, pp. 472-473; G. Korte, Rh. Mus., LIII, 1898, pp. 
265 ff.; Gétt. gel. Anz., 1908, pp. 838-840; A. Wilhelm, Ath. Mitt., XXII, 1898, pp. 487-492; J.—M., App. Ep., p. 99, 
No. 20; A. Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 7-10; H. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae, II, 
No. 1, pp. 1-6; E. Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 14-17; Klio, IX, 1903, pp. 231-236. A facsimile in Lolling, l.c., pl. 2; 
photographs in Wilhelm, l.c., pl. IX, 2, and Wiegand, Poros-Architektur, p. 111, fig. 114. The later articles by Korte 
and Petersen modify the conclusions of the earlier in important particulars. 


HISTORY 439 


worshippers on the Acropolis with the fines which were imposed for violation of its pre- 
scriptions. Destroyed, apparently during the Persian occupation,! only a short time after 
its erection, it has been partially recovered from some 41 fragments, collected at various 
times from all parts of the Acropolis. One metope is very poorly preserved, but, so far as 
can be seen, contained nothing calculated to throw any light on the topography of the 
sanctuary. Of the other slab ? a much larger part has survived, and in spite of some awk- 
ward lacunae, its contents can be determined with considerable precision. Two passages 
clearly refer to pre-Persian buildings, though unfortunately the first is so defective that its 
exact interpretation depends upon conjectural restorations, which, however probable, are 
not sufficiently certain to furnish a sure foundation for further argument. 

(1) The first passage (Il. 8-13), with only those restorations which may be considered as 
beyond all reasonable doubt, runs as follows:3— 


btlO St €| P10 ply-o-¥ 7 a|s]m. 


Peet «YC O;K GE TOmp. .........08 op oF. 
Geer oy \e Ore PT Os TOK... . ee ara olhie 
KaTtTopwmle Slo vine So0v@ olvleyfB... .[eavdelr ut sir ovr o 


a. 
prtedpaltcer dos elxglelvart OoarluelypttrprtovoBPerdo 
T 


em ea lt ag ¢ ti] 


It is obvious that we have here prohibitions addressed to those who came to the Acrop- 
olis to offer sacrifices or perform other sacred rites. The relatively small fine — only half 
a drachma — suggests that the forbidden actions were not regarded as very heinous offen- 


99 66 


ses. Moreover, the references to the ‘‘temple,” “altar,” ‘‘Hecatompedon,” and a precinct 


or building the name of which began with K, indicate that the prohibitions applied only 
to a somewhat definitely restricted area. If, however, we proceed to inquire more particu- 
larly into the character of these offenses and the exact relation of the buildings to one 
another, we at once encounter difficulties which have not yet received a thoroughly con- 
vineing solution. 

The examination of the text may well start with the fragmentary prohibition in line 
11, ped’ dvOov éyB . . . ., Since on its meaning depends to a considerable extent the res- 


1 Some fragments were found in the ‘“Perserschutt,”’ Lolling, l.c., p. 628. The well-preserved remains of color 
on some of the letters suggest that the original was not exposed to the air for a very long period. 

2 This slab is commonly described as occupying the second place, but the investigations of B. H. Hill, as yet 
unpublished, indicate that it really stood before the other. 

3 The inscription is stoichedon with 38 letters in a line. The mark of separation between paragraphs (:::), oc- 
cupies the place of a letter; the other mark of separation (:) is placed between the letters without affecting their 
arrangement in the column. In line 8, only the upper part of the | and the upper horizontal bar of the E are pre- 
served; the bottom of the right leg of the A can be traced in the fracture of the stone; the right upper angle of the 
/\ is preserved. In line 9 the lower part of the first E and traces of the V in ve6 can be detected. According to the 
notes of B. H. Hill, near the end of the line, O B [Ol], the first O may be accepted as sure, though © is perhaps barely 
possible from existing traces; in the next place either B or P is possible; the following space would permit O easily 
and there is perhaps a slight trace of this letter or ©; | is not likely; L impossible, and E nearly or quite so. In line 
11, letter 21, the letter is B; there is no possibility that it was L. 


440 THE ERECHTHEUM 


toration of the earlier lines, which ought to refer to an offense of similar nature, inasmuch 
as both prescriptions are accompanied by the same penalty. The traces of the third letter 
of the missing verb (.) have been shown by Korte to be consistent only with B.' In that 
case the complete clause must have read ped’ dvOov éyBad(A)ev or, less probably, éyBanév.” 
The exact force of the prohibition is not wholly clear, but it seems probable that the wor- 
shippers are warned against defiling the sacred precinct — a warning the necessity for 
which is easily understood by any visitor in Mediterranean lands. The chief, if not the 
only, objection to this interpretation is that dos does not seem to be used elsewhere of 
human excrement, and indeed is restricted by the lexicographers to that of animals, or even 
of asses and cattle;? but the word itself is rare in later writers, and it may be doubted 
whether much stress is to be laid on this limitation. Some support for the more inclusive 
meaning may also be found in the aid which it furnishes to the restoration of the imme- 
diately preceding lines. 

In line 8 the first prohibition may plausibly be restored as MEOPEN (w ovpeiv), and this 
is naturally followed by a list of the places to which the ordinance applies. For the first 
part of this list the reading pelraxod 76 ved kal 76 mpdls €0 peyaAlo Blolus, first suggested by 
Wilhelm,‘ has been very generally accepted; but we may also read, with considerable 
probability, weraxod 76 ved Kal 76 mpoTbAo Kal 76 Bous.° The other places ought to be con- 
nected with what precedes by yyéé, if good Greek usage is followed, and this consideration 
restricts considerably the possibilities in lines 9 and 10. Since there are only five letters 
missing at the end of line 9, [ye6’ éx]ro#ev alone seems possible. The word beginning with 
K in this context can hardly be other than Kexpozio,® which again leaves a space of five let- 
ters, easily filled by ped’ avja. The whole passage will then read, in the Ionic alphabet, 
as follows: Tods lepovpyotvras pi ovpety weraéd Tod ved xal Tod mpds ew peyadou Bwuod (or rod 


mpoTvAou kal Tod Bwuod) und’ Exrobev Tod ved évtds TOD Kexporiov pnd’ ava wav TO ‘Exatouredov, nd’ 


1 G. Korte, Gétt. gel. Anz., 1908, p. 838. The fragment lacks the prolongation of the vertical stroke below the 
oblique which is characteristic of L in this inscription, and also shows the somewhat larger angle which appears in FE. 
See also the preceding note. 

® The former is preferred by KGrte (J.c.), the latter by Petersen (Klio, IX, 1909, p. 231). The aorist infinitive 
in this general prohibition seems improbable. 

® Cf. e.g., Hesychius, 6vOos xémpos xrnvav Hror B6\BTOs; Suidas, évOos* Bé\Birov- robrecTw % Tv Bodv xbmpos; Pollux, 
V, 91. In Homer the word is always accompanied by a defining adjective or genitive, and in other examples the con- 
text shows that the dung of animals is meant. 

* Wilhelm, Ath. Mitt., XXIII, 1898, p. 492. 

® This reading was brought to my attention by B. H. Hill, and has been adopted by L. B. Holland in his paper 
on the position of the Chalcidian chariot on the Acropolis (A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 77). It is not noticed in J. G., 
I’, 4, and, so far as I know, has not hitherto appeared in print. It has the advantage of removing the somewhat de- 
tailed definition of the altar of Athena, presumably one of the best known monuments on the Acropolis and as little 
in need of precise identification as the yess or Hecatompedon. It may, however, be urged in support of Wilhelm’s 
conjecture that there were several other altars in this part of the Acropolis (e.g., those of Zeus Hypatos, Dione, and 
Zeus Herceus), and that consequently it was desirable to specify clearly which one was intended. 

6 In Ath. Mitt., XXXXVII, 1922, p. 105, Buschor supplies 76 x[aro oexd], “the lower enclosure,” which he inter- 


prets as including the temenos of the ‘‘tokens”’ as well as the Cecropium. He compares ’Epex6éos onxés in Herodotus, 
VIII, 55, as emended by Furtwiingler; see p. 436, note 2 


. 


HISTORY 44] 


dvOov éxBardeu: éav 5€ Tis TOUTWY TL Opa Eldws eFetvar Away expt TpLaV 6BEAGY TotoL Tayiacr.! This 
gives, in either version, a smooth and intelligible text, though one not wholly free from 
difficulties. If the penalty still seems very slight according to modern ideas, it must be 
remembered that the offense, like some others recorded in this inscription, was evidently 
regarded rather as a violation of propriety and good order than as a profanation.2 More 
serious perhaps is the difficulty arising from the occurrence of the phrase éxrofev rod vew 
immediately after wera) rod ved Kai Tod . . . Bwpod, since, whichever restoration is adopted, 
the latter space was also “outside of the vews,’’ whether this word be taken to denote the 
whole temple or only the cella. The distinction seems superfluous unless in line 9 the ves 
is limited to the building, and in line 10 extended to include the ground about it. Yet the 
assumption that in successive lines the word is used in different meanings is surely too im- 
probable to merit serious consideration, and if the restoration éxrofev rod ved be accepted,’ 
the words can be explained only by a desire to emphasize the externality of the Cecropium 
and probably of the Hecatompedon as well, though the reason for such emphasis remains 
obscure. 

Even if the restoration of these lines be doubtful or unacceptable in some of its de- 
tails, the interpretation of the topographical indications is not greatly hampered thereby, 
since the points mentioned seem to be fairly certain. The injunction, whatever its nature, 
applies to certain places which are described as “‘between the vews and the great altar 
toward the east,’ or ‘‘between the vews, the mpoTvdor, and the altar,” ‘“‘outside the vews 
within the Cecropium,” and ‘‘along the whole Hecatompedon.”’ There are then four, or 
five, objects which call for identification: the vews, the altar, the Cecropium, the Hecatom- 
pedon, and perhaps the zpérvdov. The second and third cause no trouble. The “great altar 


1 Except for the words in parenthesis this is the restoration adopted by Korte, Gétt. gel. Anz., 1908, p. 838. The 
readings éyBadev and dpév had been suggested by Michaelis (Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 7), but rejected as inconsistent 
with the meaning of dros according to the lexicographers. They had also occurred independently to Dérpfeld and 
Wilhelm. They were strongly urged by KGrte (J.c.) and adopted, with a lengthy argument in confirmation, by Peter- 
sen, Klio, IX, 1909, pp. 231-234. 

Still another version of these lines is offered by Hiller von Gaertringen in J. G., I?, 4. Accepting the restricted 
meaning assigned to dros by the lexicographers, and adopting in line 8 an ingenious emendation of Wolters, he reads 
Tos Lepopyévras pe &prapev mpds 76 ved Kal 73 mpds %o weyddo Boyd Kal vordbev 76 ved &vTds T6 Kexporio kai ava way TO hexarop- 
medov ued’ bvOov ¢yBadev x... It is not easy to see exactly what is gained by this restoration. A prohibition to 
slaughter animals near the great altar of sacrifice seems strange, and if animals were not to be killed in the sacred 
area, the simplest way to avoid defilement by them would have been to have excluded them altogether. It is not 
necessary to decide here between these different readings, none of which is wholly satisfactory. The present discussion 
is primarily concerned with the identification of the ‘“‘vews”” and of the “ Hecatompedon,” and this problem remains 
much the same whichever of the three restorations is chosen, since its solution obviously cannot depend upon a con- 
jecture, however probable. 

2 Since the whole inscription is so fragmentary, general conclusions as to its contents can be drawn only with 
great reserve, but it seems that the prescriptions, so far as the worshippers are concerned, are not directed against 
serious or sacrilegious offenses, but aim rather at preventing irregularities of conduct and thus promoting good order. 
Hence the rather light penalties. Where the regulations affect the officials the fines are much heavier, as in the next 
section, where priestesses or attendants are fined 100 drachmae if they have a storeroom or kitchen on the Acropolis, 
and the Treasurers the same amount if they overlook this offense. 

3 Any other restoration seems impossible without violating good Greek usage by reading «ai for undé. If this can 
be done, either vord8er or xarwer would be possible, and the interpretation would certainly become easier. 


442 THE ERECHTHEUM 


to the east,” or ‘‘the altar” par excellence, is, of course, the altar of Athena, whether this 
occupied the usually accepted site on the highest point of the Acropolis, or, as Dérpfeld 
has recently suggested, was only about 15 metres east of the Hecatompedon.! The Cecro- 
pium is, of course, the precinct extending west from the southwest corner of the later 
Erechtheum, though its boundaries in 485 B.c. may not have been exactly the same as 
at the end of the century.2. The identification of the rpdomvAov is more uncertain. It may 
be the main entrance to the Acropolis, the predecessor of the Propylaea, and the ordi- 
nance may have been intended merely to protect the approach to the temple and the 
altar. In that case, however, the triangle formed by temple, altar, and entrance would 
apparently include much of the Hecatompedon and even (if the temple were on the site of 
the Erechtheum) a part of the Cecropium, both of which the following lines of the in- 
scription would lead us to believe were outside. It is quite as probable, therefore, that 
the zpérvdov is the gateway leading into the sacred area proper — the ipdy of Herodotus, 
—put as neither the boundaries of this precinct nor the position of the gateway can be 
determined with any certainty, this explanation contributes nothing to our topographical 
knowledge.*® 

The chief difficulty lies in the interpretation of vews and Hecatompedon. Are the two 
words synonymous? Is the vews a part of the Heeatompedon? Do the two words denote 
distinct objects, and, if so, to what does each apply? The first question may be briefly 
dismissed. There is no satisfactory reason for the sudden introduction of the word ‘Exarép- 
redov if this differs in no respect from vews; in fact such a sudden and unexplained change in 
nomenclature would be merely confusing, and would make the whole statement almost 
unintelligible. The second question cannot be so readily answered. Even if the vews is 
not the whole Hecatompedon, the view, steadily maintained by Dorpfeld,* that it is the 
cella of that building, is plausible, and indeed, if there was but one temple of Athena on the 
Acropolis, seems at first sight almost inevitable. Yet there are some serious obstacles to 
accepting it. So far as can be judged, there is no reference in the preceding portion of the 
inscription to the temple or any of its parts, so that vews suddenly appears without any 
indication from the context that it bears a restricted meaning which is not clearly inherent 

1 For the accepted site see Cavvadias and Kawerau, pls. A’, A’; D’Ooge, Acropolis, pl. VII, 69. Dérpfeld (Jb. 
Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 8, 30) prefers to consider this the precinct of Zeus Polieus, and places the altar of Athena 


at a point where the surface of the rock appears to have been dressed for a distance of about 5 metres from east to west, 
as if for a wall (Cavvadias and Kawerau, pl.[’). Holland (A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 167) suggests that this cutting 
marks the southeast corner of the court of the Mycenaean palace. 

® For the Cecropium see Ch. I, pp. 127-137, and Puare I. Michaelis’ conjecture Kexporiov (J—-M., App. Ep., 
p- 99, No. 20; Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 9) has been generally accepted; but see also p. 440, note 6. 

* In a paper read before the Archaeological Institute of America (see A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 77) L. B. Hol- 
land suggested that this gateway ‘‘stood on the line of an ancient wall running from just behind the Promachos statue 
to the Pelasgian wall southwest of the Parthenon.” If, on the other hand, it were near the site of the North Portico 
of the Erechtheum, the triangular protected area would include the terraces north and northeast of the Hecatom- 
pedon, which were certainly much exposed to defilement. 


4 Ath. Mitt., XXI, 1897, p. 164; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 7-8. Against this view cf. Kérte, Rh. Mus., 
LIII, 1898, p. 249; Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 8. 


HISTORY 443 


in the word itself.'. Quite apart from this difficulty, the wording of the inscription, accord- 
ing to this interpretation, is very singular, for there is nothing in the ordinance itself to call 
for any mention of the cella. Conceivably ‘‘between the cella and the altar” might be a 
more definite description than “between the Hecatompedon (or temple) and the altar,’ 
though the distinction is not very obvious; but it is hard to understand the absence of any 
indication that it is the cella and not the whole temple that is meant, until the Hecatompe- 
don appears for the whole building; while ‘‘outside the cella, within the Cecropium” is a 
most peculiar way of locating a precinct which was barely in contact with the northwest 
corner of the cella (PLATE I), though adjacent to the rest of the Hecatompedon. These 
obscurities are perhaps insufficient to warrant an unqualified rejection of this theory, but 
it is certainly worth while to consider whether another interpretation may not accord 
better with the topographical order and the terms employed in the inscription, and at the 
same time avoid any conflict with the other evidence as to conditions at this time. 

Such an interpretation, if it exist, must be found in the third and only other possible 
hypothesis, that the vews and the Hecatompedon are entirely separate entities, and this at 
once raises anew the question whether there were at this time two temples of Athena on the 
Acropolis or only one. In the latter case the vews is, of course, the large hexastyle, peristyle 
temple just south of the later Erechtheum, and since it may be regarded as certain that 
there was no other large building then standing in this part of the Acropolis, the Hecatom- 
pedon must be, as proposed by Korte and Bulle,? a precinct one hundred feet long. The 
arguments against this interpretation of the word have been well stated by Petersen and 
others,* and it is certainly true that there is nowhere else any mention of such a precinct, 
while the remains of the north wall of the Pandroseum, to say nothing of the early walls 
beneath the Erechtheum,‘ are against the presence of any large enclosure here in the pre- 
Persian period. Yet in view of the difficulties in the explanation of the language of the in- 
scription on the supposition that the vews was either the Hecatompedon or its cella, there 
seems no other satisfactory meaning for the term, if we are limited to a single temple of 
Athena. Quite apart, however, from the inadvisability of creating an otherwise unknown 


1 White, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., VI, 1895, pp. 7-11, and Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 8, maintain that veds 
is never used in the sense of cella without some distinct indication of its limitation in the context. This is perhaps too 
sweeping a statement, but there seems to be no example of such an abrupt introduction as in this inscription. Usage 
certainly does not convey the impression that the word naturally suggested only the cella to the Greek mind. 

2 Korte, Rh. Mus., LIII, 1898, pp. 250-252; Gétt. gel. Anz., 1908, pp. 840-843; Bulle, Literarisches Zentralblatt, 
1908, col. 590. Korte in his first article proposed to place this Hecatompedon on the south (reading vordev rod ved in 
line 10) toward the site of the Parthenon. Later he followed Bulle in placing it on the north, regarding it as a temenos 
reaching probably to the old wall of the Acropolis, thus enclosing the uapripra and some buildings, the oixjuara of 
line 17. Such a precinct would extend from east to west about the length of Hecatompedon I, and might well have 
existed long before the temple was built. The Cecropium would be a separate enclosure within this precinct. For 
Buschor’s explanation of “‘Hecatompedon”’ see below, p. 445, note 2. 

3 Cf. e.g., Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 15-16; Klio, IX, 1909, pp. 280-237; Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, p. 91, 
note 1. Their arguments, however, are chiefly successful in refuting K6rte’s contention that the neuter ‘“Exaréumedov 
cannot be applied to the temple, which would, according to him, be 6 éxarépumedos ves. 

4 See Ch. I, pp. 120 ff., 137 ff. 


+44 THE ERECHTHEUM 


precinct to meet the exigencies of interpretation, the identification of the vews with the 
Pisistratean temple involves another difficulty, if wu odpety x.7.A. is read. The prohibi- 
tions in this inscription, whatever their nature, are no mere theoretical regulations, but 
distinctly practical, and evidently aimed at irregularities which it was desired to prevent. 
The areas, therefore, to which they apply must be such as to be more or less exposed to the 
offenses condemned. Now the space between the great temple and the altar to the east 
must have been about as open an area as could be found in that part of the Acropolis, and 
it is hard to imagine that it could ever have needed special protection.’ 

The difficulties which have just been noticed are removed, or at any rate much re- 
duced, if we assume that there were two temples of Athena still in use. The vews may then 
be identified with the Homeric temple in which was the old statue, and the Hecatompedon 
with the temple of the sixth century, which in its original form, before the addition of the 
peristyle, was about one hundred Attic-Aeginetan feet long, and doubtless early received 
its distinctive name.? The position of the early temple can easily be conjectured, for if we 
recall the connection of Athena with the wapripta and with Erechtheus, who is himself 
closely associated with the ‘‘sea,”’ there can be little doubt that it stood north of the Heca- 
tompedon, and occupied either the site of the western part of the later Erechtheum or, far 
more probably, the somewhat higher terrace which we have seen existed on the east. We 
need not here decide between these alternatives, since in either case it was on a lower level 
than its neighbor, and the stretch of ground to the east toward the altar would have for at 
least a part of the distance a low terrace rising on its south side, which might well need pro- 
tection from defilement.? On this hypothesis the prohibition applies to (1) the place east 
of the temple, just discussed, or perhaps a triangular area including this place; (2) the area 
outside of the temple, (a) within the Cecropium, i.e., north of the western part of the 
Hecatompedon, which was, as the wording shows, enclosed in some way and yet open to 
the public; and (6) around the whole Hecatompedon. The ordinance would be especially 
needed to protect the exposed foundation wall east of the Cecropium. It is noteworthy 


1 Petersen, Klio, IX, p. 233. 

? On the length (32.80 m.) see Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 8, pl. III. The gloss in Hesychius, 
‘“Exaroumedos vews év rij axpowdder wapHévor Katackevobels b7d ’AOnvaiwy pelfwr Tod éurpynobertos brs Tv Lepcav Toct TEVTHKOVTA, 
which has been cited by Petersen (Burgtempel, pp. 1-6; Klio, IX, 1909, pp. 229-230) to prove that the Pisistratean 
temple of the sixth century was called the Hecatompedon, has been badly preserved, since vews may belong equally 
well to the lemma or the definition, while rap§évo is obviously corrupt. However the text be purified, whether by 
reading with Keil and Michaelis (Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 3, note 10) ‘Exardymedos vews: 6 & Th &xpordder TlapHerdv 
x.7.A. or with Petersen (J,c.) ‘Exaréumedos* veds & ri axpordder TH Mapberw (or Ilap$evw ’A@nvG), there is no doubt that 
the Parthenon is meant, and the statement simply says that it was fifty feet longer than the building burned by the 
Persians. That this burned building was also called Hecatompedos (or -on) can be derived from Hesychius only by 
assuming that ‘Exarourédov is to be supplied with rod éurpnobévros rather than veo alone. For this assumption, how- 
ever probable it may be, the evidence is not to be found in the Greek text, but is deduced from the known facts that 
the Parthenon was about fifty feet longer than Hecatompedon I, and that the latter was one hundred feet long. The 
gloss, therefore, cannot be cited as proof that the Pisistratean temple was called Hecatompedon, though it is easy to 
believe that this was the case, and it may even have been known to the author from whom the gloss was taken. 

* This argument is equally valid if the propylon is added to the points defining the extent of the prohibition, for 
the ground between the temple and the altar is in any case included within the protected area. 


HISTORY 445 


that the region of the wapripia seems to have needed no protection; either it was closed to 
the public, or, as is perhaps more probable, its sacred character was a sufficient safeguard.! 
Thus far, then, the hypothesis that there were two temples of Athena on the Acropolis be- 
fore the Persian invasion does not involve any conflict with a natural interpretation of the 
language of the inscription, while it avoids certain difficulties which arise if we assume that 
there was but one.’ 

It is urged, however, that this theory of two temples is entirely incompatible with the 
use of the definite article with vews, since ‘‘the temple” (6 vews) without any qualifying or 
descriptive epithet (such, for example, as dpxatos) implies plainly that no other temple 
existed with which it might be confused.’ It may be taken for granted that the inscription 
was couched in language which was fully intelligible to contemporaries, however obscure 
and ambiguous it may seem to us, and that no Athenian needed any additional word to 
explain what was meant by 6 vews. It is also true, of course, that the definite article marks 
the vews as well-known — “‘the temple” par excellence, a building which could be easily 
recognized without any title.4 It does not follow that this was the only temple of the god- 
dess then in use, but simply that it was the most familiar, the one that was naturally thought 
of when a temple on the Acropolis was mentioned, or that was regarded with the greatest 
reverence. If on other grounds there is fair reason for believing that at this time two 
temples existed, the later of which was called from its size the Hecatompedon, there is no 
great difficulty in supposing that the original building with the highly revered statue was 
generally known simply as ‘‘6 vews,” ‘“‘the temple.” 

The second passage in the inscription is in lines 17-19; its restoration offers no difficulty 
at the opening, which is alone of importance for this inquiry: 74a oixéuara| [ra & rat hexa- 
tloumédor dvoiyev [rds] Tapias pe d|[Aecfov rpis] 76 pevols|] OedcOar x.7.dr. It is clear that the 

1 If Buschor’s conjecture caro cexé for xexporio, is adopted, the Pandroseum and Cecropium are both included 
in the protected area ; see p. 440, note 6. 

2 Two temples of Athena are also assumed by Buschor in his contribution to the history of early building on the 
Acropolis (‘Burgléwen’ Ath. Mitt., XXX XVII, 1922, pp. 92-105, pls. XII-XIV), but he identifies the veds of the 
inscription with the sixth-century temple (shared by Athena and Erechtheus) and the Hecatompedon with an even 
older temple, having a cella 100 feet long, on the site of the later Parthenon. The oixéuara are small treasuries in 
the temenos of this temple. It is obvious that acceptance of this theory must lead to considerable modification of the 
views expressed in the text, but until the evidence is presented in detail — it is only outlined in the article cited, — 
any criticism of its validity or discussion of its effect would be premature. 

3 Cf.,e.g., Korte, Gétt. gel. Anz., 1908, p. 839; Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. J., XXXIV, 1919, p.8. For the contrary view 
see Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 9. 

4 It is hardly necessary to support by examples this common use of the article, but there are at least two pas- 
sages of a somewhat later date in which the use of 6 ves seems comparable with that in the inscription. In Antiphon, 
VI, 39 (epi rod xopevrod) the speaker describes how his opponent sought a reconciliation: Kai éya@ rebels b16 rév 
dhitov Sum\dGynv robros & rH rode artlov paprbpwr, olwep Sin\XNaTTov Huds mpds TS ve@ rhs ’AOnvas. The Thirty, 
according to Xenophon (Hellenica, II, 3, 20), after disarming all the citizens except the 3000: dvaxouicavres raidra 
(sc. ra Srda) els THY axpdrodw EvveOnKay & 7G vag. Unless we are to suppose that in the time of Antiphon (before 
411 B.c.) and of the Thirty (405 B.c.) the Parthenon was the only temple of Athena on the Acropolis — a view which 
carries with it the corollaries that the Hecatompedon had been removed before the completion of the Erechtheum, 
and that the latter had not yet been restored after the fire of 406 B.c.,— the article here, as in the inscription, simply 


indicates the most prominent temple, — a pre-eminence which the Parthenon might well owe to its size and splendor, 
and the assumed Homeric temple to its sanctity. 


446 THE ERECHTHEUM 


terms in which the Hecatompedon is here mentioned throw no light on the problem as to 
its nature. If it is an enclosure, the oixéuara are simply small buildings, apparently treas- 
uries; while if it is the temple south of the Erechtheum, it is equally easy to understand by 
the oixéuara the rooms at the rear, which are thus shown to have been set apart for objects 
of interest or value, and not to have been devoted to any cult.1_ The words employed are 
consistent with either explanation, and the passage cannot be used to support any of the 
interpretations already discussed or to refute them. 

This completes the evidence concerning conditions around the site of the Erechtheum 
before the Persian invasion, and it must be admitted that the positive conclusions which 
can be drawn from it are few. It may be considered as fairly certain that in early times 
there existed on the Acropolis a temple of Athena in which was a highly revered wooden 
image, which later tradition declared to have fallen from heaven. Within this temple or 
its adjacent precinct Athena housed her protégé, Erechtheus, son of Earth, and here also 
were a sacred olive, believed to be the creation of the goddess, and a salt spring or “‘sea,”’ 
with the mark of a trident near it, closely associated with both Poseidon and Erechtheus 
and situated in that part of the sanctuary dedicated to the latter. Outside was a precinct 
sacred to Cecrops, and later believed to contain his tomb. The divine ‘‘tokens”’ were bor- 
dered on east and south by a somewhat higher terrace on which had once stood the royal 
palace. In the early part of the sixth century, according to the evidence of the sculptures, 
other temples were built on the Acropolis, and among them one, one hundred feet long 
(Hecatompedon I), rose upon the terrace south of the olive and the ‘‘sea.”” Before the end 
of the century the height of this temple was increased and it was surrounded by a colonnade 
and decorated with marble sculptures. This new building retained the name of ‘‘ Heca- 
tompedon”’ in spite of its increased size. Its rear rooms seem to have served as treasuries 
and to have been opened at regular intervals for the display of their contents. 

Up to this point there is but little disagreement as to the essential facts. It is when we 
come to the position and especially to the fate of the early temple that radical differences 
arise. Here two hypotheses claim to be warranted by the existing evidence. According 
to the first the Homeric temple, if it was not identical with Hecatompedon I, was com- 
pletely superseded by the latter and disappeared without leaving a trace except the pas- 
sage in the Iliad, so that until the building of the Parthenon there was but a single temple 
of Athena on the Acropolis. This view does not run directly counter to any of the literary 
evidence, although it involves, as we have seen, a somewhat forced interpretation of cer- 


1 Korte argues (Gott. gel. Anz., 1908, p. 840) that the presence of the article — ra olxéuara ra & réu hexaroumrésoe — 
shows that all the rooms are meant, and that therefore, since it cannot be supposed that the cella of the temple, which 
must be included, was closed, the Hecatompedon must be a precinct and not a temple. This seems to demand an 
excessive precision of language in the inscription. Surely the context made it clear that the rooms meant were those 
not ordinarily open, and their identity was known to every Athenian. Furthermore, if the original temple was at 
this time the centre of worship, it is quite possible that the cella of the Pisistratean temple was not always open. At 
any rate the Greek text is not in itself inapplicable to the building. 


HISTORY 447 


tain passages. Its chief supports are the lack of specific statements to the contrary and 
especially the assumed absence of any remains which can be reasonably attributed to 
such an early building. The latter argument, however, must not be pressed too far. Apart 
from the possible significance of the walls which have left their traces beneath the Erech- 
theum, it must be remembered that a temple of the seventh century, or earlier, was in 
all probability built of crude brick and wood, materials which would, of course, disappear 
without leaving a trace, while stone foundations, if beneath the Erechtheum, would have 
been destroyed by the construction of the church. 

The second theory maintains that the Homeric temple with the ancient statue originally 
stood on the terrace east of the ‘‘tokens,’’ where, like the old temple at Rhamnus, it con- 
tinued to exist beside its later neighbor. The preceding pages have shown that such a view 
finds no obstacle, but rather support, in the literature, which is, however, too vague in its 
testimony to be wholly conclusive. It is, moreover, clear that the continued presence of an 
early temple on the site proposed affords a satisfactory explanation of the preservation 
here of the old level after the ground on the south had been raised by the construction of 
the Hecatompedon, and also accounts for the care taken by the builders of the Erechtheum 
to disturb as little as possible the ancient walls, perhaps foundations, which they encoun- 
tered. If these walls still sustained the original temple, their preservation was obviously 
imperative. If the little cella of Athena was on the eastern terrace, and the shrine of Erech- 
theus with the ‘‘sea’’ was below on the west, the two buildings stood in much the same 
relation as the two parts of the Erechtheum, though both were probably smaller. It 
therefore appears that this theory of the site and the survival of the Homeric temple is 
in closer harmony with our scanty information than that which admits but a single temple 
of Athena in the early fifth century, although it cannot be treated as conclusively proved, 
and in the consideration of post-Persian conditions the possible truth of either hypothesis 
must be admitted and the evidence examined from both points of view. 

The Persian invasion and the occupation of Athens in successive years by the forces of 
Xerxes and Mardonius left the Acropolis a mass of ruins. We are told that on the first oc- 
casion the Persians plundered and burned the sanctuary, while on the second they over- 
threw whatever houses and temples had been left standing.! Fire would destroy little more 
than the ceilings and roofs of stone temples and calcine the stone around doors or other 
openings. The walls and columns would be scorched and blackened, but otherwise would 
not be greatly harmed. The language of Herodotus, however, implies that fire was not 
the only agency employed, and that the soldiers of Mardonius also tore down much that 
the fire had left standing. Even if full allowance be made for the natural exaggeration of the 
damage by Athenian tradition, it may reasonably be assumed that more was needed to 


1 Herodotus, VIII, 53: ’Emel 5€ ogc wavres xatéorpwrtc, 7d ipdv avAnoavTes &VErpnoay Tacay Thy axpomohw. IX, 13: 
(Mapddénos) bretexcnpee turphoas re Tas ’AOnvas Kai el ob Te Opfdv Hv THY TELXéwr 7H TGV oiknuaTww fj Tov ipdv TavTa KataBahov 


Kal ovyxwoas. 


448 THE ERECHTHEUM 


make the temples of the Acropolis fit for service than merely to replace the burned beams 
and fallen tiles.! There is no record of the steps taken by the Athenians to re-establish 
their destroyed temples. It is, of course, certain that the great works on the Acropolis were 
not begun before the middle of the fifth century,’ and even the plans can hardly have been 
completed much earlier, for although the influence of Pericles was undoubtedly powerful 
after the ostracism of Cimon (461/60 B.c.), the Athenians were too fully occupied with 
foreign wars during the next decade to give much attention to costly schemes for the adorn- 
ment of the city.’ Yet it is hard to believe that during all this period nothing was done to 
render the ruined temples usable, or that the old statue of Athena, for example, which had 
accompanied the flight from Xerxes, was left in Salamis or kept in some private house for 
any great number of years. It is surely more probable that the damaged walls were patched 
and stuccoed, and the burned roofs and ceilings restored, so that the old acts of worship 
could be resumed in their accustomed places. Any other course, indeed, would have ac- 
corded ill with the Athenian reputation for piety or with gratitude to the gods who had so 
notably aided the city.‘ 

In the case of the temples on the Acropolis any restoration was certainly of a limited 
character. Small temples, such as were probably the early Erechtheum of Herodotus ° and 
the old temple of Athena east of it, could be quickly and completely repaired, but in the 
case of the large Hecatompedon restoration was apparently more limited. The peristyle, 
or what was left of it, was removed and considerable remains, including blocks of the 
architrave and of the cornice, triglyphs, metopes, and drums of columns, were built into 
the north wall of the Acropolis. The unfinished drums and other blocks of the earlier 
Parthenon shared in great measure the same fate, but neither in the walls of the Acropolis 
nor in the “‘ Perserschutt”’ are any fragments which can be attributed with certainty to the 
main building of the Hecatompedon in its enlarged form.’ It seems, therefore, that this 


* The fact that the remains of the peristyle of the Hecatompedon, which are built into the walls of the Acropolis, 
are not broken but only scorched, is hardly sufficient to prove that the entire peristyle was left standing by the Per- 
sians and only what could be burned, or, like the sculptures in the pediments, be easily broken , was destroyed (Dérpfeld 
Ath. Miit., XXII, 1897, pp. 165-166; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 9-10). All that can be safely said is that a 
considerable part escaped with relatively little serious injury. 

? The great platform for the earlier Parthenon had been built and the temple begun before the Persian invasion, 
but the Parthenon as erected was, of course, a new building. 

* On the slow recovery of Athens after its destruction by the Persians, and the apparent weakness of Athenian 
aie and art between 480 and 450 B.c., see the excellent remarks of Lechat, La sculpture attique avant Phidias, 
pp. 

* On the supposed oath of the Greeks not to rebuild the temples burned by the Persians, see Busolt, Griechische 
Geschichte, III, 1, p. 358, note 3; E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, II, p. 97, note 1. Even if this oath be 
historical and not a mere transference to Greece by Athenian orators of a similar oath of the Ionians, it would hardly 
have prevented temporary restorations to make the temples serviceable until new buildings were ready. 

> That restoration was carried out here to some extent is shown by the remains of the wall and pavement in the 
Pandroseum. As has been pointed out above (p. 125), these remains are earlier than the Erechtheum but later than 
the Persian invasion. The indications point to a date in the second, or possibly the third, quarter of the fifth century. 
A reconstruction of this region as it appeared after the post-Persian (or Cimonian) restoration is presented by Holland, 
A.J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 402-425. 

° Dorpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 10. Holland (1. c., pp. 414-416) suggests that the poros blocks in the 
paved area north of the Erechtheum (p. 15) are from the walls of the Hecatompedon. 


HISTORY 449 


portion of the building was suffered to remain, and since a mere ruin would naturally have 
shared the fate of the peristyle, it is reasonable to believe that the building was sufficiently 
repaired to serve some purpose in the economy of the Acropolis. On the theory that before 
the war the Hecatompedon had been the only temple of Athena and had contained the 
ancient statue, such a restoration is exactly what might be expected. If, however — as 
seems somewhat more probable — there had previously existed another and earlier temple 
of Athena on the site of the Erechtheum, where the ancient statue had been housed, the 
question naturally arises whether this temple too was restored, or whether the Hecatom- 
pedon was repaired to serve as its substitute; if the former alternative is chosen, it is fur- 
ther necessary to seek some reason for the continued existence of the Hecatompedon. To 
these questions the actual remains furnish no answer, and since the literature also is wholly 
silent, it is necessary to turn to the inscriptions, which, it must be admitted, yield practi- 
eally no information. Indeed all that can be gathered from their testimony is that before 
the new Parthenon was begun, there was a temple of Athena on the Acropolis, which was 
sometimes called 6 dpyatos vews, ‘‘the ancient (or original) temple,’’ apparently as distin- 
guished not so much from a new temple as from all newer temples.’ It is not easy to 
understand why such an epithet should have been employed, if at this time there was only 
one temple in use — and none in construction — unless the name was a survival from an 
earlier period when there were two or more.” 

This dpxatos vews appears, for the first time, so far as our records go, in the decree, to 
which reference has already been made, containing the sentence inflicted upon the Athenian 
supporters of Cleomenes of Sparta in his attempt to overthrow the Cleisthenian democracy.’ 
Even if the copy of Craterus was made, as is probable, from the decree as renewed after 
the retreat of the Persians, the political conditions were such as to render any long delay 
in such a renewal unlikely, and it is safe to place this document well within the first decade 
after 479 B.c. 

The second appearance of the apxatos vews is in an inscription which cannot be positively 
dated by its contents, though the palaeographical indications have been thought to point 
to a time not far from 460 8.c.4 This inscription > consists of three marble fragments, 

1 Cf. Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, p. 91, note 1. For a further discussion of apxaios, see below, p. 460. 

2 The appearance of the phrase 6 dpxaios vews in itself tells us nothing about the condition of the building to 
which it was applied. The épxatos vews at Eleusis was evidently not repaired, or at least was soon abandoned, since 
even in the fifth century it appears as a source of building material for the wall of the precinct and for a bridge over 
the Reitos (I. G., I2, 81), while later in the same century (ca. 408 B.c.) its remains are regularly inventoried among 
the oxebn in the hands of the émoréra (I. G., I?, 313, 314). 

8 Scholia Aristoph., Lysistrata, 273. On this scholium and its probable source, see above, pp. 434 f. Its form 
warrants its inclusion in epigraphic rather than literary evidence. 

4 In I. G., 2, 80, no year is specified, but the inscription is placed at the end of the section “Decreta et Leges. 
A. 431/0-422/1.” This implies a date at least thirty years later than that hitherto generally accepted. For the 
present discussion the date is unimportant. 

5 [. G., I, 93 (fragments a and b), I’, 80; Von Prott and Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae, II, No. 14, pp. 58-62, 


with the third fragment, discovered by Wilhelm, new readings by Von Prott, and commentary by Ziehen. A bit of the 
upper surface is preserved on a, and of the right edge onc. The first part of the inscription, apparently providing 


450 THE ERECHTHEUM 


badly broken, and without any points of contact, so that it is impossible to fix with certainty 
the exact length of the lines or to determine precisely the contents. It seems to be a decree 
of the people, and the mention of the Praxiergidae (Il. 18, 16, 23, 24), and the peplos (1. 11: 
Gludvervioow tov rérdov), the recurrence of the phrase xara 7a marpra (Il. 8, 18, 22), the 
reference to an oracle of Apollo (I. 10), and to the month Thargelion (1. 20), all suggest 
prescriptions connected with the ancestral cult of Athena Polias and with the ancient 
statue, since we know that the Praxiergidae were entrusted with the veiling of the statue 
before it was escorted to the sea at the celebration of the Plynteria in Thargelion.’ It is 
practically certain, therefore, that the temple mentioned in the inscription is that of 
Athena. Line 5 in fragment a is naturally restored as avaypaylavras & oré|det] and line 6 
as... |Oev 76 ved 76 dpxlato. The length of the gap at the end of line 5 is uncertain, but 
it must have contained the usual directions for placing the stele,? so that the missing word 
ending in -fev indicated the position with reference to the temple.*? Obviously this tells us 
nothing about the situation of the temple and throws no light on its identity with either the 
Hecatompedon or the Homeric temple. 

Another inscription of about the middle of the century, which has played a certain part 
in this discussion, must also be discarded. This is the long but very imperfect document, 
now in the British Museum, relating to the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, the 
sacred truce, the collection of fines, and payments to the officials. The stone, which was 
inscribed on at least three faces, has lost about one-third of its width and is also badly 
chipped and weathered in many places, so that the text is full of gaps and uncertainties. 
Near the end (ll. 115 ff.) there is a provision for the disposition of the sacred funds, which 
were apparently to be brought to Athens and deposited on the Acropolis (éu oder). As 
commonly restored this place was described in ll. 117-119 as émc|OJev (or vord|Olev 76 res 
’Adevaials apxaio v|elo éu woe. But this restoration cannot be reconciled with the traces 


for setting up the stele, paying the cost of the festival (Ziehen, p. 60), and giving a summary of the oracle, is in 
smaller characters more closely spaced than the latter part, which contains the ordinance for the ceremonies. The 
inscription was regarded by Larfeld (Handbuch der griechischen E'pigraphik, I], p. 442) as ‘die archaisierende Auf- 
zeichnung einer spiteren Zeit’”’ because of the occurrence of w (twice) and the dative plural in -ats, as well as the 
“karikirt”’ characters. Wilhelm, however, declared the characters “so ehrlich altertiimlich wie nur méglich,” and 
placed the inscription definitely before the middle of the fifth century (Pfuhl, Gétt. gel. Anz., 1907, p. 478; Von 
Prott and Ziehen, op. cit., p. 60, note 4). 

1 See Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen, pp. 491 ff. The suggestion of Mommsen (p. 114, note 5), that the inscrip- 
tion referred to the ceremony of the peplos at the Panathenaea, was disproved by the discovery of the third fragment 
containing the reference to the month Thargelion. 

? On this formula see Larfeld, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik, I1, pp. 606-607; 710 ff. 

’ The oblique stroke of an A before -Gev recorded in the Corpus (I, 93) is really a fracture in the stone according 
to Von Prott (J. c., p. 58). It is rightly omitted in the new edition (I2, 80). 

* I. G@., I, 1, and Suppl. pp. 3, 133 =I?, 6; Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr., 1, 2; Von Prott and Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae, 
II, 3, pp. 11-18; Roberts-Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, I, 2, pp. 3-6, 534; Crénert, Gott. gel. Anz., 1908, pp. 1020-1023 
(a new study of the original with the tentative decipherment of much previously considered illegible); Dittenberger, 
Sylloge,*, I, 42, with Crénert’s readings. In September, 1923, J. M. Paton and B. H. Hill were enabled by the courtesy 
of Mr. A. H. Smith to examine the stone again with the results noted in the text, and these results were confirmed 
in a second examination by Hill in 1925. The numbering of the lines in the text is that of J. G., By. 


HISTORY 451 


on the stone of the first letters (restored as © and E) of lines 118 and 119. In line 118 there 
is no sign of a O, though the right side of the circle should have been visible, and near the 
top of the line is a small *, which can hardly be anything else than the right upper corner 
of r.t In line 119 what remains in the break at the margin is f, but the surface on the 
right below is well preserved and there is certainly no trace of the two lower horizontal 
bars of the E. The fragmentary letter was surely T, as stated in Roberts-Gardner, op. cit., 
p. 534, and the first words of the line were ro éu 7é\e. Since the number of letters in each 
line (23) is clear from other passages in the inscription, the restoration dpyato ved becomes 
impossible, and the place of deposit remains conjectural.’ 

The question, therefore, whether the early temple on the site of the Erechtheum was 
restored after the Persian wars cannot be definitely answered, though its survival seems 
exceedingly probable in view of the difficulty of accounting for the official use of the name 
apxatos vews on any Other hypothesis. If this is correct, no other building was required to 
take its place, and it becomes necessary to inquire why the Hecatompedon continued to 
exist without its peristyle.? The answer may perhaps be found in the continued need for its 
rear rooms, 7a oikéuara Ta év Tou ‘Exarourédo, as they are called in the inscription of 485/4 B.c. 
These rooms were clearly used for the keeping of valuables before the Persian invasion and 
may well have been restored for the same purpose. It was certainly necessary to provide a 
safe place where the Treasurers of Athena could deposit valuable votive offerings and the 
money which accrued from the lands and other property of the goddess. The amount of 
this income could not have been small, if we may judge from the loans made to the state 
during the Archidamian War, and it seems more natural to suppose that the old rooms were 
refitted than that a new building was erected. After the removal of the treasury of the 
League from Delos to Athens (ca. 454 B.c.), and the establishment of the annual payment 
to Athena of one-sixtieth of the tribute, the need for a safe place of storage must have been 
almost imperative. For although the expenses of the war with Persia, and later of the build- 
ings on the Acropolis, may have prevented the accumulation of large reserves, and the 
portion of Athena may have been usually borrowed by the State, there must have been 
periods when very considerable sums were in the hands of the Hellenotamiae, or of the 
Treasurers of Athena. It seems highly probable, therefore, that a strong building must 
have existed on the Acropolis before the completion of the Parthenon, even if the later 
treasury was in that temple. It is, accordingly, quite possible that when the Eleusinian 
money was brought to the Acropolis, it was deposited in the rear rooms of the Hecatom- 
pedon. If it were, the language of the inscription seems significant. Amid all the uncer- 
tainty of the mutilated text, it is at least clear that there was no mention of the Hecatom- 

1 Tf the letter were A (Gamma), as suggested in Roberts-Gardner, op. cit., p. 534, the angle would be acute and 
there should be some remains of the right hasta lower down where the surface is fairly well preserved. 

2 For the dpxatos vews in an inventory of property of Artemis Brauronia from the end of the fifth century (J. G., 


LP’, 386, 387) see below, pp. 466 f., note 2 (3). 
5 That it survived until 406 B.c, is very probable. See below, p. 460. 


452 THE ERECHTHEUM 


pedon or of the Opisthodomos.! This silence suggests that the old name was no longer 
considered appropriate,? and that the new name had not yet been introduced — if, indeed, 
it was ever given to these rooms. 

From this examination of the evidence it is fairly obvious that the solution of the 
problems connected with the early temples of Athena on the Acropolis is not advanced 
appreciably by our information about conditions in the’years which followed the Persian 
War. In fact all we have learned is that during this period there were on the Acropolis an 
‘ancient temple”? and also a place where money could be safely kept. That both these 
buildings — if they were not one and the same — had existed before 480 B.c. may be safely 
assumed, and we know, of course, that they were not the only survivors, but the contem- 
porary testimony is neither so abundant nor so clear as to fix definitely their identity. The 
answer to this question will depend in some measure upon the conclusions which may be 
reached as to the history and purpose of the Erechtheum. 


II. Tur ERECHTHEUM AS A GREEK TEMPLE 3 


1. THe BUILDING oF THE ERECHTHEUM.— In the course of the Attic year corresponding 
to 410/9 B.c. the Athenian assembly on motion of a certain Epigenes appointed a com- 
mittee of five, including an architect and secretary, to examine the condition of an unfinished 
temple on the Acropolis, with power, as it seems, to resume work upon it. In the first 
prytany of the next year, when Diocles was archon, this committee presented its report, 
including a very detailed description of the actual state of the building and apparently, in 
the missing portion of the document, specifications for its completion.* No name is given 
to this temple, which is only described (Inscription II, 1. 1) as ho veds ho éu wéde év har 7d 
apxatov éya\ua, but there can be no doubt that it is the building now known as the Erech- 
theum ’ — a name that was certainly not in general use in antiquity.® 


1 For a discussion of the question of the Opisthodomos, so far as it is concerned with the history of the Erech- 
theum, see below, pp. 470-474. 

2 This disuse of the old name might be explained as due to the fact that the building was now called the épxaios 
vews, or else as showing that, although the walls remained standing, only the rear rooms had been fully repaired, 
while the cella had not been restored to its earlier use. 

* This section necessarily includes subjects which have been already touched upon in the previous chapters and, 
although they are generally examined here from a somewhat different point of view, a certain amount of repetition 
in the treatment has proved unavoidable. 

* See above, Ch. IV, Inscriptions I and II, and Commentary, pp. 280 ff., 299 f., 320 f. 

* ‘The general concordance between the inscription and the building in the size and shape of the stones listed, in 
the use of Eleusinian stone for the frieze, in the presence of the North Portico with its great door, and of the Porch of 
the Maidens, as well as the close agreement in numerous details, indicated in the preceding chapter, have long since 
removed all possible doubt on this point. 5 

® The name ’EpéxGeov seems to occur only twice in literature: in Pausanias (I, 26, 5: ore 6é al otknua ’EpéxOerov 
xaotpevorv) and in the life of the orator Lycurgus attributed to Plutarch (Vitae X Oratorum, p. 843: éorw airy } Karaywy? 

- . & Tivake Tedely bs dvaketrar &v ’Epexbelw). Whether this passage is taken from Heliodorus of Athens, as maintained 
by Keil (Hermes, XXX, 1895, pp. 207-208) or from Diodorus the periegete (Pauly-Wissowa, s.vv. ‘ Diodorus, V,’ 
col. 662, and ‘ Heliodorus, VIII,’ cols. 15-18) the name is equally established for the third century B.c., but there is 
nothing to prove that it denotes the whole building rather than merely the western part. It is not found in any 
Attic inscription nor is it explained in any of the Lexica, so that it is unlikely that it was ever an official or even a 
very common or popular name. 


HISTORY 453 


The work of construction was already well advanced. The walls were complete as far 
as the architrave, except at the southwest corner, where the upper blocks, epicranitis, and 
architrave on the south wall, and the architrave over the southern intercolumniation on the 
west were still lacking. With the exception of the south wall outside the Porch of the Mai- 
dens, the walls had also received the final dressing above the orthostates, and the columns 
on the west wall had been fluted. The North Portico still lacked rafters and tiles, but the 
Porch of the Maidens was practically complete, since nothing further was needed except 
to dress the upper surface of three blocks of the roof and to carve into rosettes the flat 
disks on the upper fascia of the architrave — a bit of decoration which was in fact never 
executed.1. Moreover much of the stone needed for completing the building was on the 
ground, and some of it was more or less completely dressed for use. Under these conditions 
the work was resumed and pushed forward with a fair degree of rapidity, considering the 
relatively small number of laborers employed. Its progress, until its completion about 
406 B.c., may be followed in the reports of the commissioners, who record every item in 
their receipts and expenditures with a precision and wealth of detail which are quite lacking 
in the accounts of the Parthenon and the Propylaea. Since the fragments of these reports 
have been arranged, translated, and fully discussed in the preceding chapter, there is no 
need to repeat the story here. 

That construction had halted for a considerable period may be inferred from the very 
detailed report of the commissioners, and that the interruption had been somewhat sudden 
and unforeseen, from the amount of finished and partly finished material on hand. Such 
inferences find strong confirmation in the political and economic conditions at Athens about 
this time. The motion of Epigenes and the resumption of work are not easily separated 
from the great improvement in the situation produced by the victory of Alcibiades at 
Cyzicus and his further successes in the Hellespont in 410/9 B.c.?_ On the other hand, the 
occupation of Decelea by the Spartans in the spring of 413 B.c., or at any rate the disaster 
at Syracuse in the autumn of the same year, must have sufficed to put a summary stop to 
all but the most necessary public building. The interruption, therefore, can hardly have 
been less than four years in length, and may well have been longer, since the equipment of 
the first Sicilian expedition in 415 B.c. and of the reinforcement under Demosthenes in the 
following year involved very heavy expenditure, and would naturally diminish consider- 
ably the funds available for construction, even if they were then, as later, drawn only from 
the treasury of Athena. 


1 For the details, see Ch. IV, Inscription I, col. 1, Commentary, pp. 301-314. 

2 It has been suggested by Kirchhoff (‘Zur Geschichte des Athenischen Staatsschatzes,’ Abh. Berl. Akad., 1876, 
p. 56) that the completion of the Erechtheum was in the nature of relief work and due to the same circumstances 
which enabled Cleophon at this time to introduce the diwfeda. This view has also been adopted by Wilamowitz, 
Aristoteles und Athen, II, p. 215; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, IV, p. 613; Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, III, 
pp. 1545-1546; Sauer, Z. bild. Kunst, XXVIII, 1916, p. 215. The relatively small number of men employed, however, 
makes it doubtful whether any great benefit can have been afforded to the poor by this work. 


454 THE ERECHTHEUM 


If either of these causes — the expedition to Sicily or the outbreak of the Decelean 
War — stopped the building, the latest date at which the temple could have been begun, 
in view of its advanced condition in 409 B.c., would seem to fall in the brief interval of 
Athenian prosperity which followed the Peace of Nicias (421 B.c.), and since a certain in- 
terval must be allowed for the accumulation of funds after the heavy expenses of the ten 
preceding years of war, the commencement of the work may be conjecturally placed as not 
later than 419 or 418 B.c. There is, however, absolutely no direct evidence on this point. 
The first known mention of the Erechtheum is in the report of the commissioners in 409 B.c., 
and if any fragment of the accounts of payments for earlier work has survived, it has 
not yet been identified! Although the argument eé silentio is rarely conclusive, this absence 
of all earlier record is perhaps the strongest reason for assigning so late a date as 419/18 B.c. 
to the foundation of the building.? It seems strange that no mention should be made of 
the Erechtheum, if it had formed part of the plan of Pericles for the reconstruction of the 
Acropolis and had received its definite form at the hands of his architects, even though its 
completion had been delayed until the next generation. Furthermore, while there is little 
information about the public works undertaken during the brief interval of peace after 
421 3.c.,? the erection of a new and beautiful temple, which should combine a shrine for 
the ancient statue and a centre for the cults which gathered about the revered “tokens” 
of the triumph of Athena, would accord well with the somewhat conservative piety gener- 
ally attributed to Nicias, and so might naturally have been undertaken at a time when his 
influence was predominant. It is obvious, however, that this view, though attractive, 
rests on no more substantial foundation than inferences drawn from the general conditions 
at the time, and that the possibility of an earlier date must be admitted. 

This earlier date is, of course, to be sought before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
War in 432 B.c., since no one can reasonably suppose that during the war any new work 
was undertaken by the Athenians. On this hypothesis the Erechtheum enters into the 
general plan for the transformation and adornment of the Acropolis prepared by the 
Periclean architects. Work upon it would naturally have begun when the Parthenon 


1 In the inscription J. G., I2, 88, the proposed restoration of lines 20, 21 hot émuararat [76 ved 76 &u rode ey | hit] 
76 &pxaiov &yadya, is impossible. Since its first publication (Sitzb. Berl. Akad., 1922, pp. 187-192; A.J.A., XXVII, 
1923, pp. 314-321), the stone has been partially cleaned, and according to B. H. Hill, the second letter in line 21 is 
certainly A and the third in all probability |. There is no trace of the first letter. We must read | .Jau 76 apxatov ayadyua. 
It is, therefore, entirely uncertain whether the érucraras have any connection with the “temple for the ancient statue,” 
and even whether the statue is that of Athena. The other side of the stele contains part of the accounts for the con- 
struction of the temple of Athena Nike, so that it seems quite possible that the ‘‘ancient statue” is that of Nike and 
the érusrarar the commissioners in charge of the new building. Hondius (Novae inscriptiones atticae, p. 80) suggests 
ho. émusrarat [76 apxaio ved & hi kjai 7d dpxatov &yadua, — a possible reading; but the formula does not occur else- 
where, and there seems no good reason to insert a mention of the Erechtheum (or of its predecessor, according to 
Hondius) in a document having no other apparent connection with that building. 

* For the arguments in favor of a date shortly after 421 B.c., ef. A. Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, pp. 362 ff. 

* The second temple of Dionysus near the theatre, which contained the chryselephantine statue by Aleamenes, 
seems to have been built about this time. See Reisch, ‘Der Dionysos des Alkamenes,’ Eranos Vindobonensis, p. 3; 
alee and Reisch, Das Griechische Theater, pp. 21f.; Judeich, Topographie, pp. 283, 285; D’Ooge, Acropolis, 
p. 230. 


HISTORY 455 


neared completion, about the same time as the commencement of the Propylaea, and some 
features in its Ionic architecture suggest that it too may have been designed by Mnesicles.! 

Apart from the architectural considerations, which, though highly suggestive, are 
not conclusive, there is no more positive testimony for this date than for the later one. 
Indirect confirmation, however, has been sought in the construction of the flight of steps 
leading from the terrace of the Chalcotheca to the higher terrace west of the Parthenon.? 
There is no direct evidence as to the time when these steps were constructed, but their 
obvious relation to the Parthenon, and the fact that their southern end was blocked by 
the portico of the Chalcotheca, which was probably built in the fourth century, warrant 
the conjecture that they were laid out when the temple was near completion and the ground 
about it was finally cleared and levelled. The steps are cut in the solid rock except at the 
southern end, where they were built of stone. Here the foundations only are preserved, 
consisting of blocks of Kara limestone which certainly once formed part of the stylobate of 
the peristyle of the Hecatompedon. Now, as we have seen (p. 15), this stylobate was re- 
moved from the eastern half of the north side when the Porch of the Maidens and the south 
wall of the Erechtheum were built, and it is argued that this is the source for the blocks 
used in the foundations of the steps, and that consequently, when these foundations were 
laid, work on the Erechtheum had already commenced, since otherwise this material would 
not have been available. Two facts may be cited in support of this view. First, the total 
length of the limestone foundations is but little less than the length of the stylobate removed 
to make room for the Erechtheum. Second, there is no indication of the use elsewhere of 
blocks from the stylobate, as, for example, in the walls of the Acropolis or in the founda- 
tions of the Propylaea. Hence it seems probable that the stylobate remained undisturbed, 
except for the removal of the blocks in question, at least during the fifth century, and, 
therefore, that when the steps west of the Parthenon were laid, the site of the Erechtheum 
had been definitely surveyed, even if the work of construction had not actually begun. 
This conclusion, however, cannot be regarded as fixing definitely the date of the Erech- 
theum, for while it is true that the steps may be as early as 435 B.c., it is also quite as pos- 
sible that they belong to a somewhat later date. There is certainly some reason to believe 
that about 420 B.c. the Athenians appointed commissioners and voted a considerable sum 
of money to complete the task of beautifying the Acropolis. The steps may well have been 
included in this work. 


1 The arguments in favor of the earlier date for the Erechtheum and of its attribution to Mnesicles have 
been presented by Dorpfeld in a series of papers: Ath. Miid., XXII, 1897, p. 166; XXVII, 1902, pp. 401, 414; 
XXIX, 1904, pp. 101-107; XXXVI, 1911, pp. 41, 42; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 13. Against a date approxi- 
mately contemporary with the Propylaea is the extreme rarity, so far as can be seen, both in that building and in 
the slightly earlier Parthenon, of the T-dowels which are regularly used throughout the Erechtheum (see above, 
Ch. II, pp. 194, 195). 

2 On these steps, see Judeich, Topographie, p. 284; D’Ooge, Acropolis, p. 291, plan VII, No. 114; Cavvadias 
and Kawerau, pl. Z’. 

3 These measures may fairly be deduced from the language of the inscription on the reverse of the well-known 
stele containing the decree of Callias (I. G., I, 32 = I?, 91, 92). The latter decree, on the obverse of the stone, was 


456 THE ERECHTHEUM 


From this examination of the evidence it appears that the earlier date, although perhaps 
the more probable on stylistic grounds, does not rest on much more secure foundations 
than the later. The general conditions at Athens, both political and economic — so far 
as they are known — are equally favorable for the commencement of the work at either 
time, and there seems no decisive reason for insisting on one hypothesis to the exclusion 
of the other. The unsatisfactory conclusion is thus inevitable that in the light of our present 
knowledge the year in which the Erechtheum was begun cannot be definitely determined. 

2. Tur Purpose oF THE TEMPLE. — Whatever uncertainties may hang over the date 
when the Erechtheum was planned, there can be little doubt as to the purpose of its build- 
ers. This is clearly indicated in the first line of the report of the commissioners of 409 B.c., 
where the new building is described as ho veds ho éu rode ev hor 76 apxaiov &yadya, “the temple 
in the Acropolis for the ancient statue.”’ The epithet dpxatov shows that this was the 
old wooden image which was believed to have fallen from heaven, and since, later in the 
inscriptions, it is simply called 76 dyadua,! it was probably intended to be the only statue 
in the building. Evidently, therefore, the temple was erected primarily to honor Athena 
by furnishing a fitting shrine for her most sacred image. Indeed so far as the contemporary 
records go, this was the only purpose, unless the single mention of the Prostomiaion ? be 
understood to imply that the 64\acca was included in the temple. It is true that the “‘sea,”’ 
the mark of the trident, the home of the sacred serpent, and the altars described by Pau- 
sanias were all in the lower part of the building, and that this part seems to have been 
practically complete, except for the roof and painting, in 409 B.c., so that there is no reason 
for surprise that none of these objects is named in the accounts of expenses incurred in 
finishing the building, especially as these expenditures are almost wholly confined to work 
on the upper part or on the exterior. Yet, if the erection of the Erechtheum introduced — 
or was expected to introduce — a marked change in the old relations by transferring the 
ancient image to a new site and by uniting in a double temple of Athena and Erechtheus 
cults hitherto adjacent but separated, it is strange that no hint of this twofold purpose 
should appear anywhere. There is, of course, no question that Erechtheus had a place in 
the building, and that later a part of it, or perhaps the whole, was called by his name. Yet 
the complete absence of any mention of him in all the inscriptions referring to the temple 
seems to show that the Athenians of the fifth century saw in their new building only a con- 
tinuation of the old relation which was described in the Iliad; by the special favor of 
Athena Erechtheus was admitted to a share in her temple, — but it was all her temple. 
That this was taken for granted without explicit definition further suggests that the new 


almost certainly passed in 435/4 B.c., or very shortly after that year. The date of the vote on the reverse is more 
doubtful. It may well be contemporary with the decree of Callias, but it is also quite possible that it is to be assigned 
to the same period as the engraving of the stele, that is, according to the palaeographical indications, to a year shortly 
after 420 B.c. See Cavaignac, T'résor d’Athénes, pp. xx-xxii, 138-140; Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, II, 
pp. 88 ff.; Bannier, kh, Mus., LXX, 1915, pp. 397-400; Stevenson, J.HS., XLIV, 1924, pp. 1-11. 

1 Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1.75; XI, col. u, ll. 42-46. 

2 Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 71. 


HISTORY 457 


building involved no radical alteration in existing arrangements, but simply perpetuated 
the old situation whereby the cult of Erechtheus and the ‘“‘sea”’ of Poseidon had always 
been within the sanctuary (iepdv) of Athena, close to her ancient statue. Thus the only 
novelty would consist in the inclusion of statue and ‘‘sea” within a single building, or 
rather under a single roof; there would be no change in their relative positions. 

From this point of view the references in the inscriptions to the statue appear in a new 
light. As has been said, these references are three in number: (1) II, 1. 1: 6 veds . . . & hau 
70 apxatov &yadua: (2) IT, col. 1,1. 75: 76 (roixo) rpds 76 dyaduaros: (3) XI, col. 11, ll. 42-46: 
KahipuaTa ... el Tev dpoder él Tas cedidas Tas brép [76] ayaduaros.! None of these passages 
necessarily implies the presence of the statue in the temple at the time. In (1) the missing 
verb may be éora, as it must be in column 1, line 42 of this same inscription, where the 
frieze is called 6 ’EXevowraxds \iOos rpds hai Ta Cra, although it is practically certain that none 
of the marble figures were yet attached. Also (2) and (3) can be interpreted without un- 
due violence as referring to the place where the statue was to stand, since this would natu- 
rally have been fixed in the plans. In support of this interpretation it may also be urged 
that when the commissioners made their report in 409 B.c. the new temple was without a 
roof, and it is highly improbable that the wooden statue would have been placed in an open 
building, even though it may have been moved there later in the year, when the East Cella 
was already covered.? Obviously, however, all this argumentation becomes superfluous if 
the East Cella of the Erechtheum was built upon the site of the apyatos vews. In that case 
nothing hinders the assumption that the shrine with the ancient statue of the goddess, 
duly repaired after the Persian destruction, remained undisturbed until the new temple 
was sufficiently advanced to make its retention unnecessary.*? The statue then was actually 
in its proper place during the whole period of construction of the Erechtheum, and it is 
possible to understand literally the references in the inscriptions. 

It appears, therefore, that the building inscriptions accord without difficulty with the 
theory as to the earlier conditions, already discussed in the preceding section and there 
shown to be wholly congruent with the existing evidence, according to which the ‘‘ancient 
temple” of Athena, containing the ‘‘ancient statue,’ occupied approximately the site of 
the East Cella of the Erechtheum, while in its precinct to the west were the shrine of Erech- 
theus with the ‘‘sea”’ and the olive. Yet although the tenor of the inscriptions, both in 
form of expression and in omissions, seems more easily intelligible on this hypothesis, the 


1 See above, Ch. IV, pp. 286, 290, 340 and Commentary, pp. 298 f. 

2 As is suggested by Frickenhaus, A.J.A., X, 1906, p. 15. 

3 A similar method was followed during the building of the new St. Peter’s in Rome, where it was obviously 
desirable that the tomb of the Apostle should remain undisturbed and yet be as accessible to pilgrims as before. Con- 
temporary drawings show the new walls rising outside and around the old basilica, part of which was not removed 
until early in the seventeenth century. Cf., e. g., Orbaan, ‘Der Abbruch Alt-Sankt-Peters, 1605-1615,’ Jahrbuch 
der preussischen Kunstsammlungen, XXXIX, 1919, Beiheft; Egger, Rémische Veduten, pls. XX, XXVI, XXVII; 
Hermanin, Die Stadt Rom im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, pls. XLIV, XLV). In 1924 a modern example of the same 
process was afforded in Athens in the case of the church of St. Dionysius on the ‘Odds Zxovgé. The old church was in 
daily use, although it was almost enclosed by the walls and roof of the new and larger church which was to replace it. 


458 THE ERECHTHEUM 


words do not contain anything which cannot be reconciled with the other view that the 
cult of Athena was from earliest times centred in the cella of the Hecatompedon, where 
stood the ancient statue, and that its transference to the Erechtheum and close union with 
the ‘“‘tokens” embodied a distinctly radical departure from long-established custom — 
so radical in fact that, on this theory, it failed completely, since neither the cult of Athena 
nor her statue were ever more than temporarily absent from their old site.1 

There remains the question whether the Erechtheum as actually built corresponded 
fully to the intentions of those who first planned it. That the design underwent some modi- 
fications in detail during the progress of construction is probable enough; indeed we have 
seen good reason to believe that the position of the west wall was not that originally in- 
tended (pp. 167-169). Such modifications obviously left the general plan and especially 
the purpose of the building unaltered. On the other hand a complete change of view on 
the part of the Athenians is implied in the theory to which Dérpfeld has been led by his 
firm conviction that the Erechtheum was originally intended to replace the Hecatompedon 
(which nevertheless remained intact), and by his keen appreciation of some of the archi- 
tectural irregularities in its construction.? In his opinion the original plan of the Erech- 
theum called for a much larger building, which may be somewhat loosely described as the 
two parts of the Hecatompedon placed on elevated terraces respectively east and west of 
a lower central area in which were the ‘‘tokens.’”’ This building was divided into five parts. 
On the eastern terrace was the cella of Athena Polias, intended to receive the ancient 
image. The adjoining room on the west was a single chamber (Dérpfeld does not accept 
the partition wall running from east to west), or rather court, without ceiling or roof, con- 
taining a xaoua or ordémov, the supposed subterranean abode of Erechtheus.* This is the 
Prostomiaion of the Chandler inscription. On the west this court was bounded by a row 
of pilasters (rather than by a solid wall with doors), which separated it from the Parastas, 
or corridor, connecting the north and south porticoes and affording access to the rooms on 
either side. Beneath the Parastas was the ‘‘sea’’; covered by the great blocks which 
formed the pavement of the corridor (cf. p. 161). This room was roofed by a low stone 
ceiling to which the slab in the niche at the southwest corner belonged. Up to this point 
there was no essential difference between the building as planned and as actually con- 
structed, but the rest of the original design was never even begun. The western boundary 
of the corridor was to have been a row of pilasters, like those on the east, but placed three 
Attic feet farther west than the existing west wall, so that the axis of the two doors in the 
porticoes might also form the north and south axis of theroom. Beyond these pilasters was, 
of course, the Pandroseum with the sacred olive, but this was to be altered to a court of the 


1 Cf, Dorpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 13-15, 20-23, 39. 

? The theory was first published in Ath. Mitt., XXIX, 1904, pp. 101-107, and this article remains the most com- 
plete presentation of Dérpfeld’s views. See also Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 14, 17, 18, 23, 35, 37; Jb. kl. Alt., 
XXIV, 1921, pp. 433-439, where the theory is restated in part, with some modifications in details. 

* See Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 61-93, 99-101, whose opinion on this point is adopted by Dérpfeld. 


HISTORY 459 


same size as the one adjoining the East Cella, and like it bounded on the north and south 
by high walls. West of this again was to be constructed an elevated terrace, corresponding 
to that at the east, and also occupied by a portico and cella. This building was to contain 
the treasury and replace the rear rooms of the Hecatompedon, identified by Dérpfeld with 
the Opisthodomos of the inscriptions. The whole building would have been 120 Attic feet 
in length and symmetrical about the axis of the doors in the north and south porticoes. 
The position of the west wall shows that at an early stage in the work the architect recog- 
nized the impossibility of proceeding at that time with the execution of his plan, but he 
may have cherished hope of its revival in the future, and in any case the influence of the 
original design is visible in the construction of the pier at the southwest corner of the 
North Portico and of the horizontal cornice on the south side of this same corner, as well 
as in the junction of the roof of the Porch of the Maidens with the west wall of the main 
building (Fig. 81), and in other irregularities... The abandonment of this elaborate plan 
for uniting in a single building the ancient cults which centred around this site was due to 
the opposition of the conservative opponents of Pericles and especially to the priests.?. The 
movement was sufficiently strong to compel the retention of the Hecatompedon as the old 
temple of Athena Polias and the adoption of the much curtailed scheme actually carried 
out, from which in the end Athena was practically excluded; for in the opinion of Dérpfeld 
the ancient statue, even if it was temporarily removed from the Hecatompedon after the 
fire of 406 B.c., was speedily restored to its old place, and the East Cella of the Erechtheum, 
whatever its original destination, became in fact the sanctuary of the three civvao of 
Athena — Poseidon-Erechtheus, Hephaestus, and Butes—and it was here that their 
altars were seen by Pausanias. <A discussion of this theory is neither possible, nor wholly 
fair, since its author has only published it in outline, and has indeed withheld the full 
statement of his arguments until the drawings in this book should be available.? Obviously 
until all his evidence has been presented and carefully examined, no final judgment should 
be pronounced. It may be pointed out, however, that the conclusions reached in earlier 
chapters tend to invalidate certain details in the proposed original plan, such as, for ex- 
ample, the existence of a low stone ceiling over the westernmost room (p. 171), the position 
assigned to the projected west wall (p. 168, note 1), and the lack of a normal ceiling and 
roof over all the western rooms (pp. 363 ff., 408 f.). 

3. Tue Fire or 406 B.c. — Whether the Erechtheum was built to replace the Hecatom- 
pedon or not, its construction almost of necessity carried with it the removal — or at any 
rate the intended removal — of the latter. ‘It is impossible to believe that the builders of 
the Porch of the Maidens expected their handiwork to remain almost completely hidden 
by a wall of stuccoed poros but little over two feet distant from its southeastern corner. 

1 On the difficulties which would have confronted any attempt to complete the building according to the original 
plan, see Weller, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, pp. 130-141. 


2 On this supposed conservative opposition and the extent of its influence, see below, pp. 463 ff. 
3 Jb. kl. Alt., XXIV, 1921, p. 439. 


460 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Moreover there is a curious silence about the Hecatompedon in the building inscriptions. 
The situation of various parts of the new temple is indicated by references to the Pan- 
droseum and Cecropium on the west, to the altar (i.e., the great altar of Athena) and the 
altar of Dione on the east, but nowhere is the Hecatompedon or any part of it used to de- 
fine a position, although it was certainly the most conspicuous object in the immediate 
neighborhood. If the inscription was intended to furnish a permanent record, it is easy 
to see why no reference was made to a building which it was planned to remove at once 
and which would therefore be useless as a landmark for later generations. 

In fact there would be good reason to suspect that the temple had never been rebuilt 
after its destruction by the Persians, or else had been removed during the construction of 
the Erechtheum, were it not for the explicit statement of Xenophon,’ who among the events 
of the year 406/5 B.c. records that ‘‘the old temple of Athena in Athens took fire,” or “was 
set on fire,’ — in view of the common meaning of the active of éumirpnu, at least as prob- 
able a translation. Unless we assume that Xenophon was more careless than usual in his 
choice of words, the building thus designated is unmistakable. Work on the Erechtheum 
must have barely ceased, and although it is perfectly credible that the building with the 
dpxatov &yaAua might well have inherited also the name of the apxatos vews, as the exist- 
ing representative of the oldest and most revered temple on the Acropolis,’ it is hard to 
believe that Xenophon could have used the adjective radaids of a wholly new building, 
since the word contains no trace of the time-honored associations conveyed by dapxaios, but 
simply denotes that which has existed in the past and is now old.*? There is indeed at pres- 
ent little doubt that the burned temple was the Hecatompedon,’ and since its removal at 
this time was apparently contemplated, and perhaps met with opposition, there is some 
reason for seeing in the language of Xenophon a hint that this extremely opportune fire 
was not purely accidental. 

The extent to which the temple was damaged does not appear, but unless very consider- 
able harm was done, there is no obvious reason why the burning of the temple should have 
seemed worthy of mention, along with an eclipse of the moon, as one of the two distinctive 
events of the year, apart from operations connected with the war. If, however, Inscription 
XXVIII (7. G., II, 829)° is correctly restored and interpreted, during the year 406/5 or 


1 Xenophon, Hellenica, I, 6, 1: Té 5’ émdvre Eran & 4H Te ceAHvn eeeAuTEV Earrepas Kal 6 Tadauds THs ’AOnvas veds ev ’AOHvats 
éverpnoOm. If this passage is an interpolation (ef. Beloch, Gr. Geschichte, IT?, 2, pp. 248 ff.), evidence for the rebuilding 
of the Hecatompedon is almost lacking. 

? For a discussion of this question see below, pp. 465 ff. 

’ On the distinction between dpxatos and zadaids see Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 22-23; Capps, 
Cl. Phil., II, 1907, pp. 33 f.; Frickenhaus, Bonn. Jb., 118, 1909, p. 28. 

* Cf. Michaelis, J. c.; Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 20. That the burned temple was the Erechtheum 
and that radaués is used loosely for épxaios, is maintained by Frazer, Pausanias, II, pp. 566-567; Furtwingler, Mas- 
terpieces, p. 437; D’Ooge, Acropolis, p. 382; Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 238; Fowler, A.J.A., VIII, 1898, pp. 7, 15. 

> See above, Ch. IV, p. 420, and Commentary, p. 416. This inscription and also X XVII (J.G., II, 845) are assigned 
to the fourth century by Hiller von Gaertringen (J.G., I?, 374, ad fin.), because of the consistent use of the Ionic alpha- 
bet, and because of the improbability that the Athenians would have been able to afford the expense of rebuilding 


HISTORY 461 


405/4 B.c. parts of the Erechtheum which had been burned were under repair, so that the 
fire must have been sufficiently destructive to have spread from the old temple to the new. 
These repairs were of enough importance to attract, either then, or much more probably 
a few years later, the attention of some of the subject or allied cities, for the Eteocarpathians 
at the instance of a certain Hagesarchus contributed a cypress, cut in the sanctuary of 
Apollo, él rov veaw rijs ’AOnvaias ris ’AOnvdyu wedeobons,! and the Athenians were so appre- 
ciative of the gift that they recorded Hagesarchus, his sons, and the Eteocarpathians as 
benefactors, and also recognized the autonomy of the community. 


before the victories of Conon had restored their prosperity. These reasons are not absolutely conclusive. Undoubtedly 
the redaction of official documents in the Ionic alphabet before 403 B.c. is exceptional, but it is by no means unknown, 
as may be seen from the list of nine datable, official, or semi-official inscriptions in the Ionic alphabet, belonging to 
the years preceding the archonship of Eucleides, as given by Larfeld (Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik, II, 
p. 445). Among these is the long decree in honor of the Samians, voted in the archonship of Alexias whose name is 
possibly to be restored in Inscription XXVIII. The alphabet alone, therefore, does not afford decisive evidence as to 
the date. The second reason seems more weighty. There can be no doubt that in 406 B.c. the financial resources of 
Athens were practically exhausted (see Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, IV, p. 643; J.—M., Acta Arcis, 130-132). If 
the golden statues of Nike and the silver vessels in the Parthenon had already been melted down to equip the fleet, 
the Treasurers of Athena are not likely to have had any considerable amount of money at their disposal for expensive 
repairs. It is by no means self-evident, however, that these inscriptions refer to the complete restoration of the dam- 
aged building. In their very fragmentary condition any inferences as to their contents can only be tentative. Indeed 
so far as X XVII is concerned, all that can be said is that it now contains a list of payments to individual metics for 
work the nature of which remains unspecified, except for the doubtful reference to painting in line 13. Only its junc- 
tion with XXVIII (p. 416) connects it with the burned temple. In XXVIII the payments are arranged according 
to the days of the prytany, and apparently the nature of the work and the names of the workmen were also recorded. 
It is, however, to be noted that the entry for each day is brief, the sums expended are not very large, and the only 
piece of work which can be even approximately identified is the making of struts, or perhaps of water-channels, twenty 
feet long. In view of these facts, it seems reasonable to suppose that, if these two inscriptions really belong to the 
archonships of Callias and Alexias, they are not connected with restoration, but with the clearing away of débris and 
the provisional securing of the damaged portions of the building. Struts to prop weakened walls and beams or gutters 
to drain temporary roofs would be needed for such operations quite as much as for permanent constructions. If this 
solution is rejected and the inscriptions are interpreted as referring to a rebuilding rendered possible by the victories 
of Conon, it must be remembered that these victories and the consequent improvement in the position of Athens fall 
in the Attic year 394/3 B.c., and that, therefore, XXVIII cannot with consistency be assigned to the archonship of 
Diophantes (395/4 B.c.) and XXVII to the preceding year; in other words, ou this hypothesis the date in line 25 is 
not that of the recorded payments but of some event mentioned in the little gap between XX VII and XXVIII, — an 
interpretation which is doubtless possible, but cannot be considered very probable. 

1 This epithet of Athena occurs in Plutarch’s account of the decree of Themistocles (Plutarch, Themistocles, 10) 
providing that the Athenians should leave the city after entrusting it to Athena 7 ’A@nvéwy yedeobon, where it would 
seem that the actual words of the decree are preserved. The same phrase occurs in two boundary inscriptions from 
Samos (Ath. Mitt., XLIV, 1919, pp. 2-3; C. I. G., 2246), apparently designating land belonging to the goddess of 
Athens, and perhaps in a decree relating to the Colophonians (J.G., I?, 14, 15; Hondius, Novae inscriptiones atticae, 
pp. 7-15). Von Duhn (Ath. Mitt., XLVI, 1921, pp. 70-75) has pointed out that in view of these facts the choice of 
this epithet in the Carpathian inscription shows that the temple was that of the old goddess of pre-Persian times. 
His further conclusion that it proves the rebuilding of the Hecatompedon naturally depends upon the assumption 
(by no means certain, as we have seen) that the Hecatompedon was the only pre-Persian temple. The connection of 
this epithet with Themistocles had already been pointed out by Szanto, Archaeologisch-E:pigraphische Mittheilungen 
aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, XIV, 1891, pp. 118-119. 

2 I. G., XII, 1, 977, and Foucart, B. C. H., XII, 1888, pp. 1538-161. It is certainly natural to connect this 
gift of a cypress for the temple of Athena and the gratitude of the Athenians with the fire of 406 B.c., but it is by 
no means easy to bring the political situation implied in the inscription into harmony with the conditions existing in 
either 406 or 405 B.c. The vote confers autonomy on the Eteocarpathians (ll. 11-12) and apparently places them 
under the protection of the neighboring allied cities, including Cos, Rhodes, and Cnidus or Lindus (IL. 28-33). Now 
granting autonomy to subject cities was no part of the Athenian policy even toward the end of the Decelean war, 
and moreover since 412/11 3.c. the Spartans had held the island of Rhodes. The position of Carpathos at this time 


462 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Before leaving this incident in the history of the Erechtheum, it is necessary to consider 
two questions which have arisen in connection with it. Is this fire the same as that in the 
Opisthodomos mentioned by Demosthenes in the oration against Timocrates (352 B.c.)? 
Was the “‘old temple” restored after the fire? 

The argument of Demosthenes is directed against a proposal to release Androtion and 
his companions from imprisonment while awaiting trial, and in support of his thesis he cites 
a series of precedents, where distinguished men, without regard to their past services, were 
imprisoned when accused or suspected of crime. He expressly says at the beginning of 
his list that he will draw his examples from the years after the archonship of Eucleides, 
though there were plenty of earlier cases, and closes his catalogue of individuals with the 
words ‘‘all these men were imprisoned.” Then, without any indication that he is about to 
change his point of view or to introduce a new series of examples, he continues ‘‘and the 
Treasurers in whose term of office the Opisthodomos took fire (or was set on fire), both 
those of the property of the goddess and those of the other gods, were in this building (.e., 
the prison) until their trial.” ! The instance seems rather in the nature of a climax; not 
only individuals, but even whole boards had been imprisoned (Androtion and his colleagues 
had been members of a special commission). There is certainly nothing in the language 
of Demosthenes to warrant the belief that he has suddenly gone back to pre-Euclidian 
times, — indeed the very brevity of his allusion, as to an event familiar to all his hearers, 
points to a comparatively recent date. 

Since the inscriptions show that between 406 and 385 B.c. the two boards of Treasurers 
were merged into one,” if the fire in the Opisthodomos was not that mentioned by Xeno- 
phon, it must have occurred after the latter year. There is no indication that the Opistho- 
domos was destroyed by the fire or even seriously damaged, so that the later date is quite 
compatible with the survival of the Hecatompedon — on the supposition that the Opis- 
is not stated, but if it remained loyal to Athens, Rhodes would certainly not have supported its autonomy, nor would 
Hagesarchus have been in a position to ask the Lindians to place the cypress in the hands of the Athenians (ll. 38— 
41). On the other hand after the battle of Cnidus (394 B.c.) conditions were very different. Cos, Rhodes, and for a 
time Cnidus were freed from Spartan garrisons, and the establishment of autonomous governments with freedom 
from foreign occupation was one of the features of the policy pursued by Conon and Pharnabazus. It would seem 
probable, therefore, that, even if repairs on the Erechtheum may have been begun at once, the fall of Athens brought 
the work to a standstill, and it was only resumed with the revival of Athenian prosperity which followed the return 
of Conon. The decree for the Eteocarpathians would then probably fall about 393 B.c. 

In support of this date for the complete restoration of the apxatos vews, it may be noted that in the inventory of 
sacred objects in this temple published by Van Hille (’Ed. ’Apx., 1903, pp. 141 ff.; Mnemosyne, 1904, pp. 325 ff.) the 
oldest datable votive offerings are the crowns dedicated by Conon and by the Treasurers in the archonship of Eu- 
bulides (394/38 B.c.), and that these stand at the beginning of the list, which appears to follow a chronological order 
in its entries. 

1 Demosthenes, XXIV, 136: Kal oi rayiar éd’ dv 6 ’OricOd5ou0s &verphabn, kal of r&v Tis Beod Kal of Tv &AAwr OeBr, 
& 7@ oixhwate tobTw joav ~ws 7 Kplows adtots éyevero. Apparently there was a suspicion that the Treasurers were re- 
sponsible for the fire, and the scholiast reports that it was due to their wish to destroy the record of illegal loans. 
There is no other reference to this incident, and Demosthenes merely mentions their detention and trial without any 
intimation of their guilt or even of the charge against them. 


2 The consolidation may have been due to the burning of the Hecatompedon, if the treasury was in that build- 
ing, or to the impoverishment of Athens caused by the war. For another view, see Cl. Phil., XXI, 1926, p. 75. 


HISTORY 463 


thodomos was always the west part of that temple. On the other hand if the Opisthodomos 
was in the Parthenon, a fire might have consumed a considerable mass of records without 
notable injury to the walls or ceiling. There seems, therefore, no good reason, either in the 
language of Demosthenes or in the known conditions at the time, for identifying the fire 
mentioned by him with that of 406 B.c.! 

The answer to the question whether the Hecatompedon was restored after the fire 
depends in part upon the interpretation given to certain inscriptions of the fourth century, 
which will be discussed later; but without anticipating the results of this examination it 
may be well to consider first the situation created by the fire and the motives which may 
reasonably have influenced the Athenians in reaching a decision in regard to the future of 
the temple. There is no doubt that at first sight everything seems opposed to the idea of 
restoration. In fact the argument against it is overwhelming, if the Hecatompedon never 
sheltered the old statue and was only repaired after the Persian wars to serve temporarily 
as a treasury. Even if we adopt the theory that the temple had been carefully repaired 
after its destruction by the Persians in order to furnish a shrine for the sacred image and 
secure quarters for the treasury, it was no longer needed for either purpose, since the Erech- 
theum was now practically ready to receive the statue, which it had avowedly been built 
to house, while the great west room of the Parthenon was at least as secure as the west 
rooms of the old temple. Indeed there is some reason to believe that both statue and trea- 
sure had already left the Hecatompedon,? and that this fact accounts for the epithet chosen 
by Xenophon (ranavés, not dpxatos), which suggests that the building had already lost its 
quality of apxaiérns — if indeed it ever had possessed it — and was simply a somewhat 
outworn relic of the past. We have seen that the builders of the Erechtheum undoubtedly 
planned the removal of the Hecatompedon, and in this they would appear to have followed 
-a traditional policy, since the failure to rebuild the peristyle after 479 B.c. furnishes strong 
evidence that the men of that time regarded their repairs on the main building, whatever 
their extent may have been, as merely temporary. Since the fire of 406 B.c. only carried 
out existing intentions, it is certainly natural to suppose that its verdict was accepted and 
the site duly cleared. 

Against this view are urged certain later references to the Hecatompedon (identified 
with the épxatos vews, and also supposed to contain the Opisthodomos), and the undoubtedly 
illogical reconstruction is attributed to the strong influence of a conservative reaction against 
any departure from the old conditions. Since these later references are, as will be seen, 
somewhat vague and capable of more than one interpretation, it may be well to inquire a 
little into the evidence for the existence of this conservative religious reaction and its mani- 
festations on other occasions. This is the more necessary since in this case it produced such 

1 See the very satisfactory discussion of this question by A. C. Johnson (A. J. A., XVIII, 1914, pp. 1-17), who 
gives good reasons for dating this fire in the archonship of Calleas 377/6 B.c. 


2 The former may well have been moved as soon as the ceiling above it had been painted (Inscription XI, col. 
11, Il. 42-46) in 408 B.c.; the latter at the time of the decree of Callias (J. @., I, 32 = I’, 91) about 4835/4 B.c. 


464 THE ERECHTHEUM 


important results after a period of weakness. It was not strong enough to prevent ee be- 
ginning of the Erechtheum to replace the ancient temple, nor to hinder the resumption and 
completion of this work, but during the three years of this last stage it must have become 
sufficiently powerful not only to forbid the removal of the Hecatompedon, but even, when 
this temple had been badly damaged by the fire, to force its reconstruction, although this 
seriously injured the architectural effect of the beautiful new temple, and practically con- 
signed to obscurity the Porch of the Maidens, one of the most perfect monuments of 
Athenian art. Obviously such an effect can have been produced only by an appeal to very 
deep-seated feelings in the Athenian populace, and we should expect to find these feelings 
exhibited in like situations elsewhere. Yet even analogous cases are hard to find, to say 
nothing of close parallels, so that some uncertainty arises as to the validity of this argu- 
ment.! 

There is no doubt, of course, that in the case of the Propylaea the original plan of 
Mnesicles was markedly curtailed, especially on the south, and it is possible that the com- 
pelling reason for this change and for the provisional treatment given to the southwest wing 
was opposition to the threatened encroachment upon the sacred precincts of Athena Nike 
and Artemis Brauronia, although the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War and consequent 
lack of money are quite as likely to have brought the work to a conclusion. The Propylaea, 
however, was essentially a secular building, and it is easy to see why the proposed trespass 
upon the space allotted to established cults might have been unwelcome to many devout 
Athenians. In the case of the Erechtheum the situation was entirely different. The build- 
ing as erected did not, apparently, trespass upon any other cult, and the construction at 
the southwest corner points, as has been said,” to a modification of the plan in order to avoid 
injury to the Cecropium. Even the hypothetical “‘ original plan”’ (pp. 458 f.), though it might 
have altered the north boundary of the Pandroseum, would not have diminished the sacred 
territory or have interfered in any way with the space available for religious rites.’ Nor is 
this conservative religious spirit manifested elsewhere in Attica during the fifth century. 


1 On the rebuilding of the Hecatompedon after the fire and the conservative reaction, cf. Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., 
XXXIV, 1919, pp. 20, 21, 25, 39. He refers the inscriptions, J. G., II, 829 (Ch. IV, Inscription XXVIII, p. 420) and 
I.G., XII, 1, 977 (see p. 461, note 2), to the Hecatompedon rather than to the Erechtheum. There is nothing in the 
text of either inscription to prevent such a reference, but its correctness depends upon the proof of the continued 
existence of the Hecatompedon. 

2 See above, Ch. I, pp. 167-169. 


* It is a little strange that, if religious motives were so prominent in the opposition to the plans of Pericles, they 
are so rarely mentioned by the ancient authorities. According to Plutarch (Pericles, 12, 14), the attack was less upon 
the construction of the Parthenon and the Propylaea than upon the misuse of the funds of the League of Delos and 
the tribute of “the cities” in beautifying Athens. Extravagance, not impiety, is the burden of the charges, and they 
involve political policy, not the state worship. Even when impiety is alleged (Diodorus, XII, 39; Plutarch, Pericles, 
31), the attacks are directed against the philosophy of Anaxagoras, or the misappropriation of sacred funds by Phidias, 
or his irreverence in placing his own portrait and that of Pericles on the shield of the goddess, not against any attempted 
interference with sacred places, though we might suppose such plans would have offered a better ground for an appeal 
to popular courts, — provided Athenian feeling in such matters was what it is sometimes affirmed to have been. Cf. 
the remarks of Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, pp. 87 ff. 


HISTORY 465 


We have already seen that at Eleusis the épyaios ves was treated as a convenient quarry.! 
It is true that at Rhamnus and in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus at Athens the old 
temples remained beside the new. In both these cases, however, the new temples were not 
substitutes for the old, which still sheltered the ancient statues, but additions, and the 
parallel is rather with the Parthenon and the ‘‘temple of the ancient statue,” whichever 
that was, than with the Erechtheum and the Hecatompedon. Moreover the insistence on 
the rebuilding of the Hecatompedon and on the return thereto of the ancient statue pre- 
supposes that the site itself had a peculiarly sacred character; but it may be questioned 
whether there is any proof that the Athenians or the other Greeks attached especial im- 
portance to the exact spot on which the temples stood, unless, of course, this was connected 
with some natural object which could not be moved. The grotto of the Pythia, apart from 
the natural features of the place, was enough to keep the temple of Apollo at Delphi on 
the same spot, but at the Argive Heraeum the new temple was built beside the ruins of the 
old, though there was room on the old site.” It looks a little as if the contents of the temple, 
the ancient statue and its belongings, were of the greater importance, and as if it was their 
presence which consecrated the building. At any rate this seems to have been the view of 
a considerable body of Athenians for some seventy years or more. The removal of the 
peristyle of the Hecatompedon is evidence that the restoration of the inner building — so 
far as it went — had only a temporary character, while the men who began and those who 
finished the Erechtheum fully intended to remove this temporary structure. 

Yet conclusions drawn from a priori arguments must yield to any direct testimony, 
and the restoration of the Hecatompedon after the fire of 406 B.c. must be conceded, if 
clear evidence of its survival can be produced. Apart from the narrative of Pausanias and 
brief sentences in Strabo and Vitruvius which will be examined later, proof of this survival 
is derived chiefly from the appearance of an épyaios vews on the Acropolis in a small number 
of inscriptions, and from references to the Opisthodomos, which, it has been claimed, must 
be identified with the western rooms in the Hecatompedon. But before considering this 
testimony in detail, it may be well to inquire whether the Erechtheum could ever have been 
known as the apxatos vews, since if it could not, there is obviously no need of pursuing the 
inquiry further; the rebuilding of the Hecatompedon, however improbable in theory, must 
be accepted as a fact. 

We have seen that the existing evidence makes it possible to identify the dpxaios veds 
of the fifth century either with an early temple on the site of the Erechtheum or, less prob- 
ably, with the Hecatompedon. If the former hypothesis be adopted, the meaning of the 
term in the fourth century and later presents no difficulty. The old name was transferred 
to the new building, erected on the old site and containing the old image. The presence 

1 See p. 449, note 2. The only apparent instance of protection of ancient remains is the amendment of Lampon, 
forbidding the removal of stones or earth from the Pelargicon (I. G., I, Suppl. 27 b, pp. 54 ff. = I?, 76), and Lampon 
is said to have been a friend of Pericles (Plutarch, Pericles, 6; cf. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, III, pp. 515-516). 


2 Pausanias, II, 17, 7: "Eore dé brép rév vadv Tobrou Tod mporépov vaod Heuéhta TE Kal €i bj TL AAO drreNirrero 7 PrOE. 


466 THE ERECHTHEUM 


of the épxaiov &yadua would give it the quality of apxaorns, which the adjective implies, 
even if this quality was not conferred by its position on the spot where the dpxatos vews 
had always stood. On the other hand if the “old temple” of the fifth century was the Heca- 
tompedon, in which the old statue then stood, it is still conceivable that with the statue the 
name was transferred to the new building, and that the temple in which was the dpxatov 
éyadua became naturally the épxatos vews, especially after the destruction of its predecessor. 
In fact, as has been pointed out, the use of zaAaés rather than apxatos by Xenophon sug- 
gests that in his opinion the old building at the time of the fire no longer possessed any 
special value as a monument of the past. The appearance of the name dpxatos vews in the 
fourth century and later does not, therefore, in itself create any presumption in favor of 
the rebuilding of the Hecatompedon, since its application to the new Erechtheum is intel- 
ligible whatever the conditions in the fifth century.’ 

In view of these considerations it is clear that only those references to the ‘‘old temple”’ 
which contain some indication of definite characteristics have any evidential value for the 
identity of the building; the rest simply prove its existence, which is not in dispute.” This 


1 Such an application of the adjective ‘‘old’”’ to a new structure which may be considered as replacing an old 
one is natural in itself and by no means unexampled, as has been pointed out by Belger, Berl. phil. W., XVII, 1897, 
cols. 1438 ff. He cites the cases of Civita Vecchia and Orvieto (urbs vetus), where new cities on old sites were called 
old. The analogy of the “Old South” church in Boston, first suggested by Fowler (A. J. A., first series, VIII, 1893, 
p. 13),isinteresting. At the time of the great Unitarian controversy a part of the congregation seceded from the “South 
Church” and formed a new society. Since that time there have been two churches, the ‘‘Old South” (Orthodox) and 
the ‘New South” (Unitarian). A number of years after the secession the congregation of the ‘‘Old South” sold their 
eighteenth-century building to an association formed to preserve it as an historic monument, and built themselves a 
new church in another part of the city. This building obviously could not be called the ‘‘ New South,” since that title 
was already appropriated, while the familiar name of the ‘‘Old South ” still belonged to the original building, though 
this was no longer used for religious purposes. For a considerable period, therefore, the new church was known as the 
“New Old South,” though this somewhat contradictory name is now generally abbreviated to the ‘‘Old South,” the 
context alone showing which of the two buildings is meant. There seems no reason to doubt that the new building 
would have been called the ‘Old South” from the beginning, in distinction from the ‘‘ New South,” had the old church 
been destroyed when the new one was built. It may be added that the adjectives “‘old”’ and ‘“‘new”’ have never formed 
part of the legal name of either of the religious societies. 

2 A list of the negligible inscriptions may be added here as a matter of record. 

(1) J. G., II, 1, 163 (= Il?, 834), a decree regulating the celebration of the Lesser Panathenaea, where provision 
is made for two sacrifices by the Hieropoioi, one to Athena Hygieia, the other, according to Ussing’s restoration, & r@ 
dplxalw veg], a difficult reading because of the presence of &, since victims were sacrificed, as Michaelis has pointed 
out, not in but before the temple. Other restorations are & 7& ’Apleordyw] (Rangabé; ef. Pausanias I, 28, 5) and é& 
TG &plxale iepS] (Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae, II, No. 29, p. 93). 

(2) I.G., I, 464 (=TIT?, 983), containing the vote for the erection of an equestrian statue [zapa rév | ve] Tov dpxatov 
Tijs ’A@nvas zfs Hodddos]. It may be noted that, if this inscription is correctly referred by Ferguson (Klio, VIII, 1908, 
pp. 388 ff.) to the reign of Ptolemy VI, Philometor I (181-145 .c.), it is the only one certainly later than the fourth 
century referring to the dpxaios vews, and apparently the only one of any age which mentions an old temple of Athena 
Polias. Elsewhere the temple of the Polias has no descriptive epithet. This departure from established usage is 
avoided by Petersen’s conjecture z[év & dxporéde (Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, p. 48). 

In the following inscriptions the épxatos vews is mentioned in connection with objects belonging to Artemis Brau- 
ronia, and it has been suggested that in these passages the building thus designated is the old temple of Artemis at 
Brauron (Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 312; Lehner, Die athenischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten J. ahrhunderts, 
p. 79). A more probable explanation is that the reference is to the Old Temple of Athena on the Acropolis, where we 
may suppose some of the more valuable objects belonging to Artemis were stored — as they certainly were in both 
Parthenon and Opisthodomos (see below, Nos. 4 and 8) — presumably because the stoas in the precinct of the 
Brauronia on the Acropolis did not afford sufficient security (Hondius, Novae inscriptiones atticae, pp. 65-67, 70). The 


HISTORY 467 


criterion reduces still further the already small number of inscriptions in which an ‘‘old 
temple” appears, and practically limits the inquiry to certain inventories of the treasures 
contained éy 7G apxaiw ved.' It is true that the crowns, phialae, and other votive offerings 
might have been deposited in either temple,’ and even the list of the ornaments worn by 
the statue of the goddess is not conclusive, although if this statue were the dpxatov &yadua 
— and it is very hard to see what else it can be,®?— its presence certainly raises a strong 
presumption in favor of the Erechtheum, since in default of other evidence it is surely 
reasonable to suppose that the statue was in the temple which had been especially built 
to receive it, and to which it must have been removed — if it were originally in the Heca- 
tompedon — at least as early as the fire of 406 B.c. It is necessary, however, to test this 
presumption by considering how far the references to the several parts of the interior, 


first four citations are from inventories of the property of Artemis Brauronia; of the last three, two are certainly and 
the third probably from reports of the Treasurers of the other gods, but the objects catalogued apparently belong to 
the same goddess. 

(3) I. G., I2, 386, A; Hondius, op. cit., X, A. One of the fragments of an opisthographic stele. Much of the text is 
missing, but it is clear that in lines 9, 12, 13, and perhaps 14, certain objects were described as é 76 dpxaio ved, and it 
is probable that é 76 IapGevévos should be restored in line 15. The inscription is well written in good characters of the 
latter part of the fifth century, and may be dated about 420-410 B.c. (Hondius, op. cit., p. 64). It throws no direct 
light on the identity of the “Old Temple,” though it is tempting to see in the phrase é& 16 d&pxato ved evidence that 
work on the Erechtheum had rendered the ‘Old Temple” on the site of the later East Cella an unsafe place of deposit. 
It must be admitted, however, that the same phrase occurs in reports from the middle of the fourth century (see be- 
low, Nos. 4 and 5), when, so far as we know, there was no such reason for removing valuables from the Erechtheum, 
or for that matter from the Hecatompedon, if it was still in existence. 

(4) I. G., II, 2, 758, A, II, ll. 7-10: Tad’ & rod dpxatou ves tapétiwxer 7 iépea Tots émtorarass Tots él Qovdqyuov &pxovTos 
(353/2 B.c.) es rov Hapbevava KyXerrivy ’Alr|nvet [kal ov|vapxover x. T. d. 

(5) Ibid., 751, B, d, 1. 19: & rod dpxatov vew xad[k- 

(6) Ibid., 752, ll. 11-12: [14 iepeta wapéldwxev &x 7[0d apxatov vew] or perhaps lod Mapbevévos]. 

(7) I. G., Il, 2, 672, 1. 43 (3876/5 B.c.): & 7 alpxaiw ved r0(8) xpvo0(5) ey xuz[- 

(8) I. G., II, 5, 672 c, 1. 6 (not dated): & 76 dpxaiy] veG rod x[pvood. Since the first part of this inscription 
contains the same items as the last part of No. 7, the restoration may be considered certain. Lehner (J. c.) would read 
6 deiva eipav & TQ dpxalw ved Tod xpvood & xiTpq On the analogy of 672, 1. 35... . W wapéiweev ebpav & 76 eps. He 
also points out that many of the objects in 672 c appear at the beginning of the fourth century & 7@ drcbodéu@ ex ris 
xBwrod ris Bpavpwrdber (I. G., II, 2, 652, of 398/7 B.c.; 660, of 390/89 B.c.). 

(9) I. G., II, 2, 650, a fragment from an inventory. Line 2 may be restored to read é& rod ved rod] apxaiov arevey(k-, 
and interpreted as referring to some such transaction as is recorded in No. 4, above. If the restoration is correct, 
this is the only departure in the inscriptions of the fourth century from the order 6 adpxaios vews. 

In J. G., I, 1, 74, 1. 14: -ra re6 dp[xatov vew] has been incorrectly restored, as is clear from another copy of the 
same decree (I. G., II, 5, 74 b), which reads pelra 708 &pxeréx[rovos]. See I. G., II, 216, 217. 

1 Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 119 ff., published with a full commentary four of these inventories — J.G., I, 2, 
7338, A, I, 6-24; ibid., 735 (obverse); ibid., 706, A, B; "Ed. ’Apx., 1903, pp. 141 ff. = Mnemosyne, 1904, pp. 325 ff. 
To these Frickenhaus, Ath. Mitt., XX XIII, 1908, pp. 17 ff., added three much damaged fragments in which he was 
able to detect remains of the list of ornaments belonging to the statue of the goddess — J. G., II, 2, 677, I, col. 11, 
1-22; ibid., 679, col. 1, 8-31; unpublished, Athens, Nat. Mus., ined. 192. Still another incomplete list (34 lines) has 
been published by Hondius, Novae inscriptiones atticae, IX. The text agrees closely with that published in the ’E¢nyepis, 
but is earlier — probably belonging to the year 374/3 B.c., or a little later. 

2 Apparently no existing inventory, whether of the fifth or fourth century, records tepa xpjuara belonging to the 
other deities of the Erechtheum. The names of Poseidon-Erechtheus, Pandrosus, Cecrops, and Butes nowhere 
appear, and though Hephaestus is mentioned, there is nothing to show his connection with the Erechtheum rather 
than with his own temple in the lower town. 

3 Whatever may have been the case in the sixth century, after the Persian wars there is no evidence that there 
were any other temple statues of Athena on the Acropolis than the old image of olive wood, the chryselephantine 
Parthenos of Phidias, and the statue of Athena Nike. 


468 THE ERECHTHEUM 


where the various objects were exhibited, are consistent with what is known of the two 
buildings in question. 

Such references are extremely rare or altogether lacking in the majority of these in- 
scriptions. In the best preserved inventory, first published by Van Hille,’ and containing 
the report of the rayiac rs Geot for 3868/7 B.c., the objects in the dpxatos vews are recorded 
at the end of the inscription (col. m1, ll. 72-124), after those é& 7@ ve@ 7G ‘Exaroumédy (the 
east cella of the Parthenon) and éx 70d Tapfevvos (the western room). The only indication 
of the places occupied by these objects is in lines 113-115, where we find éupopaxarpa xan- 
k[A] | rpos The mapacrad[t],| Ein Svo0 mpos rie mlapaoradu].2 The rapacras also appears, as the 
sole indication of place, in another fragmentary inventory of twenty-eight years later (J. G., 
II, 2, 706) * where lines 18-19 and 25-27 may be very plausibly restored as mpds rf |[apa- 
ordde duddvov] puxpdv apyupodv, and adlp.orlepas | eiordyte mpds THe ralpacrads Evpouaxarpla | éde- 
parvrivn, pixpd Pladn apyvpa rela. Very different in this respect are two other reports, 
perhaps the latest in the group, which are contained in J. G., II, 2, 733, A, col. 11, ll. 6-24 
and 735, ll. 1-42.4. The former contains the heading APXAIOZ NEQ> and the first part 
of the list; the latter, which is broken on all sides except along a considerable part of the 
right edge, begins with the articles in line 11 of 733, but continues the list much farther, 
though like the other it is imperfect at the end. Where the two inscriptions overlap, the 
text is almost literally identical. Both of them generally record the place of the articles, 
and since some of the designations recur at irregular intervals, it is probable that the 
yearly additions to the temple treasures were not listed among the earlier possessions 
according to their locality, but simply added at the end of the existing inventory. 

The places mentioned include the zapacrds, which is here sometimes further defined 
as apiorepas or deévas eiodv7t, the breprovatoy, and the darvn, while certain ¢uddat are described 
as bmiober rijs Oipas (733, 1. 16; 735, 1.7), and others as azavrpoxd trav tepdv (733, ll. 138-14). 
These last two phrases are obviously appropriate to almost any temple, and possess no 

1 Van Hille, ’E¢. ’Apx., 1903, pp. 141 ff.; Mnemosyne, 1904, pp. 325-348, 420-434. The portion of the inscription 
relating to the apxaios ves is published by Petersen, op. cit., IV, pp. 126-127. Cf. also Frickenhaus, I. c., B, pp. 18 ff. 

2 1. G., II, 2, 677 (3867/6 B.c.) and 679 (probably about 365 B.c.), slightly later inventories, are also shown by 
the presence of the ornaments of the statue (677, 1-5; 679, 15-20; Frickenhaus, I. c., C and D) to have included the 
objects in the ‘Old Temple’’; but both are very fragmentary, and although the édoudxarpa and the Eign dbo appear 
(677, 15-16; 679, 29-30), it is impossible to say whether the rapacrés was mentioned. It is strange to find that in 
these two reports the contents of the épxaios vews followed directly upon those é& 7g ‘ExarouréSw and before those é Tod 
TapGevévos, a peculiarity which led Lehner (op. cit., p. 98) into the natural mistake of adding these articles to those 


listed in earlier inscriptions as é 70d ’Omic0dduov. The édouaxatpa also appears in the inventory published by Hondius 
(1. 20). The end of the line is missing, but there is room to restore zpés Th Tapacrds.. 

* Petersen, op. cii., III, pp. 125 ff.; Frickenhaus, l.c., E, p. 19. The inscription apparently contained part of the 
report of the rapiac of él Nixoudxov (341/40 B.c.), or at any rate included the dedications transmitted by them to 
their successors (B, ll. 4-6: ré[e | Tpootapéiocay] raylar of ext Nexoud[x lov éx’ abtav avarelOevra). 

* Petersen, op. cit., I, II, pp. 124 ff.; ef. Frickenhaus, l.c., pp. 29 ff. Neither inscription can be dated with 
certainty. The back of 733 contains an inventory of military engines, probably in the Chalcotheca, and mentions 
the archon Coroebus (306/5 B.c.), but, according to Kohler, this may be a later addition, as it is not written crovxndév, 
like the obverse, and the hand is different. The change in the objects listed and in the form of the record would ap- 


pear to indicate a considerably later date than the other reports. It is to be noted that these two inscriptions con- 
tain nothing about the statue of the goddess. 


HISTORY 469 


distinctive quality. Nor does the ¢arvy help toward a solution. In ordinary parlance the 
word means a ‘‘crib” or ‘“‘manger,’’ and here must denote a piece of temple furniture of 
similar form, perhaps a sort of trough or, as Petersen has well suggested, a table with a 
high border or frame around the top. Four silver ¢:d\ar were kept in it (733, 1. 12) and two 
little shields, helmets, and spears, also of silver, were apparently suspended against it from 
a nail (735, ll. 26-31).1 There is nothing in the name or use that associates it with any cult 
or yields any clue to the identity of the building in which it was found. | 
There remain the rapaords and ireptovatov. The meaning of the former word has been 
already briefly discussed in connection with a troublesome passage in the report of the 
commissioners of 409/8 B.c.,2 where it almost certainly denotes one of the inner walls in 
the western part of the Erechtheum. The whole context makes such an interpretation im- 
possible here, nor is there any adequate reason for supposing that the word is used with 
the same signification in two inscriptions nearly a century apart, which do not refer to 
the same room, even if it be granted that both refer to the same building. The word itself 
is a fairly common architectural term and normally denotes something which ‘‘stands 
against”’ or ‘‘beside”’ a wall, such as the jamb of a door, an anta, or a pilaster, whence it 
is a natural extension to such a meaning as seems required in the earlier inscription, — 
a wall either decorated with pilasters or jutting out like a pilaster from another wall. Since 
the treasures were inside the temple, there can be no question here of an anta, and there is 
no architectural or other evidence for the presence of pilasters in the East Cella of the 
Erechtheum, although in the cella of the Hecatompedon pilasters ranging with the two 
rows of interior columns may well have projected from the east and west walls. The rapaoras 
here may be, therefore, either one of these pilasters or the jamb of the door,’ and the latter 
supposition is strengthened by the mention of the tzeprévatov, which is certainly the lintel. 
This interpretation is also wholly consistent with the inscriptions, which show that only 
small objects such as gaa were attached to the rapacrades and teprovaoy.4 It must be 
admitted, however, that it does not contribute to the solution of the problem of the 
1 Tpds ree | [bdrvme dor|ides dpyupat muxp|[ad dbo xal] xpavidra prxpad apy|[vpa 211: doparva pilk]od apyup|[@ 211% welpd rév 
prov mwepltlerAtlyuéva x. 7. . On the interpretation, cf. Petersen, op. cit., pp. 128, 129. The same sets of diminutive 


weapons seem to appear in J.G., II, 2, 706, ll. 9-11, and Van Hille, ll. 89-90, but without any indication of their 
position. 

2 Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 73 ff.; Commentary, pp. 312-314. 

3 The old argument, first advanced by Dérpfeld (Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, pp. 196-197; cf. Miss J. E. Harrison, 
Mythology and Monumenis of Ancient Athens, p. 506), but now abandoned by him, that since in Ionic buildings the 
frame of the door was of stone to which votive offerings could not easily be attached, while in the older Doric tem- 
ples it was of wood, therefore the rapacrdéses must have been in the Doric Hecatompedon rather than in the Ionic 
Erechtheum, falls with the discovery that in the East Cella of the Erechtheum the jambs and lintel of the door prob- 
ably had a facing of metal, or of wood sheathed with metal (Ch. I, pp. 34, 35). It would also lose its force if, as 
Dérpfeld has argued (Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, p. 41; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 10), the reconstructed 
Hecatompedon was an Ionic prostyle temple, since in that case there would be no reason to assume that the 
door was framed in wood. 

4 Besides diadar there were attached to the rapaorddes drddta, doridia pixpa, AN aomvbioKvoy (these latter objects prob- 
ably differed little in size or shape from the gaa; cf. Petersen, op. cit., p. 128), Edopdxaipar, tidy, and a paxarpa 
immuxh. A drddcov pexpdv and a xiué hung on the sreprovacov. 


470 THE ERECHTHEUM 


épxatos vews, for jambs and a lintel belong to any door, and are found in both Erechtheum 
and Hecatompedon.' 
From this examination it appears that the testimony of the inscriptions does not deter- 


mine the identity of the dépxatos vews. If there is nothing in them inconsistent with the 
survival of the Hecatompedon, it is equally true that there is nothing which cannot easily 


be interpreted as referring to the Erechtheum. 
A further argument for the survival of the Hecatompedon has been drawn from the 


identification of the rear rooms of this temple with the Opisthodomos, which undoubtedly 
existed in the fourth century. It must be admitted at once that the problem of the Opistho- 
domos is by no means simple and that it has not yet received a thoroughly satisfactory 
solution.2 However, it is not necessary to decide here between the various theories which 
have been propounded, since we are merely concerned with the question whether the exist- 


ing evidence requires the proposed identification. 
We have already seen (p. 446) that before the Persian invasion these rear rooms were 


1 The interpretations of rapacrés proposed by Petersen and Doérpfeld, if either could be accepted, would afford 
an answer to the question. Petersen (Burgtempel, pp. 115 ff.), starting from the use of the word to denote the pro- 
jecting arms of the antae, and of & rapacrdow (Euripides, ph. Taur., 1159) for the space enclosed between these 
arms, concludes that both in the report of the commissioners and in the inventories rapagras is the niche or aedicula 
at the rear of the cella in which the ancient image stood. That the two projections (zapacrdées) formed one body 
(xapacrds) he infers from a late inscription at Mylasa (Ath. Mitt., XV, 259, 12) iepeds ’Agpodeirns Zu[pilas rHv ralplacrada 
évéOnxev where, however, the meaning of ‘‘niche for the image” cannot be regarded as certain; it might well denote a 
pedestal for the statue, set as a pilaster against the wall, as in an inscription from Smyrna (Dittenberger, Sylloge?, 
II, 583, ll. 14-15: &yadua pappydpwvov ’Apréudos él rapacrads wvdivn). It may be conceded that the sides of such a niche 
might be called zapacrdées — though it is much less certain that the whole structure would be called rapacras — and 
that they would serve well for displaying votive offerings, but since the only evidence for the existence of such a niche 
in the Erechtheum (which Petersen identifies with the apxaios vews) depends upon this interpretation of zapacras, and 
since this interpretation is itself an hypothesis devised in order to explain the word in the same manner in both report 
and inventories, there seems no valid reason for adopting it, when the inscriptions can be understood without attribut- 
ing to the word any unusual and practically unsupported meaning. 

The same objection of an interpretation ad hoc may be urged against the theory recently put forward by Dérp- 
feld (Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 17-18). Comparing zpocxjmor, the space in front of the oxnvh, and rapackhna, 
the wings at the side, he argues that as zpoords or mpdaraats is the portico at one end of a temple, and zepioraots the 
colonnade surrounding the building, so zapacrds is the corridor along one side, or, within the building, an aisle. In 
the report of the commissioners it refers to the western room of the Erechtheum, which was considered as a corridor 
connecting the two porticoes. In the inventories it denotes side aisles in the cella, and since such aisles existed in the 
Hecatompedon, but not in the Erechtheum, the Hecatompedon is the dpxatos vews. In accordance with the objec- 
tion already noted, it may be urged against this view that such a meaning for rapacras cannot be proved for any other 
Attic inscription, though it may perhaps be consistent with some of them, where the context gives a certain latitude 
to interpretation. Moreover, in the inventories at any rate, the prepositions employed are fatal to any such meaning 
as “corridor” or “aisle.”’ The usual formula is rpds 79 rapaordét, which may be compared with zpés 76 breprovaiw and 
mpos TH parvy (of the objects hung upon the “manger,” while & rf d4rvp is used of the ¢éAae within it); once (J. G., 
II, 2, 738, 1. 7) we find éomidioxvev xplvcobv arnprnuélvov ard rhs tapacrdsos. Neither xpés nor a6 can denote a position 
in the aisle, while, if the objects described were hung within the aisle, we should expect some indication of the walls 
or columns from which they were suspended. For these reasons it seems hardly permissible to interpret the zrapacras 
of the inscriptions either as an aedicula in the Erechtheum, or as an aisle in the Hecatompedon. 

? On the Opisthodomos see, for example, Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XII, 1881, pp. 33-39; XV, 1890, pp. 436-437; 
XXIV, 1897, pp. 168-170; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 20-22; Milchhofer, Philologus, LIII, 1894, pp. 352-861; 
White, Harv, Stud. Cl. Phil., VI, 1895, pp. 1-53; E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, II, pp. 137-141; Mich- 
aelis, Jb. Arch, I., XVII, 1902, pp. 24-31; Petersen, ibid., XXII, 1907, pp. 8-18 ; Judeich, Topographie, p. 230; Van 
are eden XXXII, 1904, pp. 427-480; D’Ooge, Acropolis, pp. 376-381; Hondius, Novae inscriptiones atticae, 
pp. 81-83. 


HISTORY 471 


probably used for the keeping of valuable offerings, and also (p. 451) that this part of the 
building may well have been restored after the retreat of Xerxes in order to serve its ancient 
purpose, and later may have received the funds of the Delian League, when the treasury 
was removed from Delos to Athens. Nor is there any doubt that these rooms could properly 
be called an opisthodomos, since the word in its original meaning denotes the back part of 
a temple or other building, even as zpddouos denotes the vestibule.1 When, therefore, the 
Opisthodomos appears in the later fifth and the fourth centuries as the place where the 
money belonging to Athena, and also apparently to the State, was deposited, it seems at 
first sight probable enough that this is the name of the old treasury. 

Yet on examination the argument from probability proves to rest on somewhat slender 
foundations. In the Hecatompedon inscription the rooms in question are simply 74 oixéuara 
and in the later inscription, which apparently provides for the transfer of money from 
Eleusis to Athens and its deposit on the Acropolis, it is at least clear that the Opisthodomos 
was not mentioned, even though the exact place where the money was to be kept is unde- 
termined.” The first appearance of the Opisthodomos is in the decree of Callias,? which 
is certainly not earlier than the year 435/4 B.c. It is, therefore, later than the completion 
of the Parthenon, in which the great western chamber with its portico formed an opistho- 
domos admirably adapted to the safe-keeping and administration of the public funds, and 
one which by its size might well become at once ‘‘the Opisthodomos” xar’ ééoxnv. The 
text of the inscription opposes no obstacle to this identification. On the obverse, where the 
new board of Treasurers of the other gods is instituted, it is provided that, after these 
officials have received from the State the money owing to the gods, they shall administer 
these funds éu wéde év rd dricf0ddur, and that they shall open, close, and seal the doors 
of the Opisthodomos in company with the Treasurers of Athena. On the reverse — possibly 
a later addition — greater precision is given to this arrangement by the following enact- 
ment: — [érevdav 5¢ éx rd|v Siaxoctov ra[Advroly, ha és amddoow éh[oédrorar ho déuos Tots] &Adors 
Oeots, a[rod0b]é& ra ddeddueva, raluevécbo Ta wey Tes *ADelvaias xpeuara [ey rd] ert dexord 76 
dria |Oodéu0, Ta 5&é TOv AAdov Oledv & Téu éx’ apliorep]a. This has been interpreted as a direct 
reference to the two rooms in the central division of the Hecatompedon (Puats I), one of 
which would be assigned to each board. The Greek can doubtless bear this interpretation, 
although the omission of the vital word, oixéwart, is somewhat peculiar.° The phrase, 
however, as it stands conveys no necessary suggestion of two chambers. It is a perfectly 

1 Pollux, I, 6: 76 5& pd abrod (sc. onxod) rpddopuos, kal rd katérw dricOddomos. Hiym. Magn.: drioOddopos: 1d dria bev 
mavros oixnuatos. See also White, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., V1, 1895, p. 38. 

2 On the Hecatompedon inscription, see pp. 445 f.; on the inscription concerning the money from Eleusis, see 
pp. 450 f. The fact that Herodotus (V, 77) apparently refers to the rear rooms of the Hecatompedon as the ‘‘megaron 
facing the west” is hardly significant, since he avoids in general merely local appellations; see p. 437. 

3 On this decree (I. G., I, 32 = I?, 91, 92) see above p. 455, note 3. For the identification of the Opisthodomos 
it is immaterial whether the ordinances on the two sides of the stone are contemporary, and whether either or both 
belong to 435/4 B.c. or fifteen years later. 


4 Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, pp. 38, 39, 210; XXII, 1897, p. 170. 
6 Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 25; D’Ooge, Acropolis, p. 377. 


472 THE ERECHTHEUM 


natural and proper Greek expression for the right and left sides of a single room, and fur- 
nishes no argument in itself for placing the Opisthodomos in the Hecatompedon. All that 
can be gathered from the language of the decree of Callias.is that ‘‘the Opisthodomos” was 
a sufficiently well-established name, whether popular or official, to need no further defini- 
tion, and that the Treasurers of Athena were already installed there, as they certainly 
would have been whether the Opisthodomos was in the Parthenon or in the Hecatompedon. 

In other inscriptions of the fifth century the Opisthodomos appears as a place from which 
money is drawn and in which bullion is kept, but it is not mentioned in the treasure-lists.! 
This is what we should expect from the decree of Callias, which only refers to the Opistho- 
domos in connection with the keeping of money,’ and, although it directs the preparation 
of detailed inventories of the iepd xpéuara belonging to Athena and to the other gods, says 
nothing about the place where these treasures are to be stored. It is a familiar fact that 
the sacred treasures of Athena in the Parthenon were duly catalogued, on separate stelae, 
under three heads, according as they were in the “‘Pronaos,”’ the “‘ Neos Hecatompedos”’ 
(the east cella, one hundred feet long), and the “Parthenon,” which must be the western 
room. It has been maintained that this nomenclature proves that the ‘“‘Opisthodomos”’ 
was not in the Parthenon,? for, if it were, it must be identified with the western portico, 
and although this portico was certainly an opisthodomos in the strict sense of the word 4 
and although its intercolumniations were effectively closed by high metal grilles with a gate 
in the centre,® it was hardly such a place as would be chosen for the storage of large sums 
of money. This last statement may well be accepted,® but it by no means follows that the 
Opisthodomos was not a part of the Parthenon. In its general sense the Opisthodomos of 
the Parthenon included all the space behind the cella,’ and it may well be used in this sense 

1 Payments from the Opisthodomos are recorded by the Logistai in 425/4 B.c. (I. G., I, 273, 1. 20 = I?, 324) and 
by the Treasurers about 406/5 B.c. (ibid., I, 191, = I, 305, 1. 13), but in the accounts it is very rare to find any men- 
tion of the place from which the money was taken. Bullion was stored in the Opisthodomos according to the report 
of the Epistatai of the sanctuary at Eleusis for 408/7 B.c. They transferred to their successors, among other things, 
& 76t driaboddpuor xpvotov ey xoirer xadkér & Tes TeTapres Hékes cepe[tov] (I. G., I?, 314, ll. 14. ff.). From their account of ex- 
penses (ibid., 313, ll. 178 ff.) it appears that this gold was security for a loan made to the Treasurers in accordance with 
a vote of the assembly. 

* Petersen, Jb. Arch. I., XXII, 1907, pp. 18, 14. 


3 Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, pp. 35, 36, 204. 

* Cf. e. g., Pausanias, V, 10, 9; 16, 1. He applies this name to the western porticoes of the temples of Zeus and 
of Hera at Olympia. See also the other references given by White, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., VI, 1895, p. 38. 

* Michaelis, Der Parthenon, pp. 22, 115, 116; D’Ooge, Acropolis, pp. 132, 133 ; Collignon, La Parthénon, ed. min., 
pp. 59, 127. 

§ Michaelis (Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 25) and Collignon (Le Parthénon, ed. min., p. 59), who identify the Opis- 
thodomos of the inscriptions with the western portico of the Parthenon, interpret racebe in the decree of Callias as 
referring solely to the administration of the funds; the money was kept in the “ Parthenon,” but the offices and records 
of the two Boards of Treasurers were in the portico. It is doubtful, however, whether rametew can be thus restricted 
to administration only, apart from safe-keeping; see Petersen, Jb. Arch. I., XXII, 1907, p. 18. 

7 Plutarch, Demetrius, 23: rév dricOddopuov Tod TlapOevavos arédertav (sc. of "A@nvaior) adr (sc. Anunrpiw) xarédd\vow 
Kael Slarrav elxe Ths ’AOnvas Neyouérns brodéxecOar Kat Exige airov, x.r.\. There is no need to explain the addition of 
rob Hapfevévos as due to the necessity of distinguishing the Opisthodomos of the Parthenon from “the Opisthodomos.” 
The words are introduced to mark the very strong contrast between the character of the guest and the place allotted 


to his entertainment, and perhaps also to define the locality to non-Athenians to whom réy émis6ddopov alone would 
convey no definite meaning. 


HISTORY 473 


in the decree of Callias and in the records of payments. In the inventories, on the other 
hand, it was necessary to distinguish the central room from the rear portico, so that a term 
which might have included both was plainly undesirable. There was certainly ample room 
in this “Parthenon” both for the money-chests of the Treasurers and for the somewhat 
miscellaneous collection of sacred objects which were stored there. 

In the fourth century the references to the Opisthodomos become somewhat more 
numerous though hardly more definite. In 388 B.c. Aristophanes (Plutus, 1193) marked 
the return of prosperity to Athens by bringing Plutus back to his old place, 7év émic0ddopuov 
del pudaTTwy THs Oecd. Later, as has been said (p. 462), it was the scene of a fire, which 
apparently destroyed the records of the Treasurers. Obviously nothing here can be used 
to fix its position. If we turn to the inscriptions we find that, in contrast to the fifth century, 
the Opisthodomos is not mentioned as a place where money is kept, but that it now appears 
in the treasure lists. The inventories in the opening years of the century are still on separate 
stelae, but the objects are now catalogued as & 7@ ved 7 éxatourédw, ek Tod Iapbevdvos, 
and ék Tod émibodduov.'! As the treasures in the temples had been very largely sacrificed to 
the needs of the State in the last years of the Peloponnesian War, and as new gifts during 
the next years were naturally few, it is reasonable to believe that the articles were now all 
collected in the east cella of the Parthenon, though recorded according to the original place 
of keeping. At the same time, however, in two lists of objects in the Neos Hecatompedos, 
belonging respectively to 398/7 and 390/89 B.c., after the additions of the year (ra éérea) 
we find a record of things in the Opisthodomos.’ It is clear, therefore, that whatever the 
motive which may have led to the removal of the sacred treasures from the ‘‘ Parthenon”’ 
and the Opisthodomos, it was not the abandonment of the latter.? If there is nothing in 
these inscriptions which proves that ‘‘Parthenon”’ and Opisthodomos were parts of the 
same building, there is certainly nothing which requires them to belong to different struc- 
tures. The objects transferred from the Opisthodomos include an incense-burner, baskets, 


1 Fragments of inventories & ro ériOoddyov are preserved in J.G., II, 5, 6456 (3899/8 B.c.), I, 2 and 5, 653 
(398/7 B.c.), where the name can be restored with confidence since the objects are the same as in 645 6, and perhaps 
in II, 2 and 5, 685. In the later inventories, where the objects are classified somewhat differently and recorded on a 
single stele, the Opisthodomos is not mentioned; see, on these lists, A. C. Johnson, A.J.A., XVIII, 1914, pp. 1-17. 
In I. G., I, 2, 720, 721, objects in the Opisthodomos appear in lists referring to the Chalcotheca; here it is probably 
a part of the latter building. 

2 7. G., II, 2, 652, B, 1. 23: rade & 7G drioG0d6u (398/7 B.c.). In J. G., I, 2, 660, 1. 61 (390/89 B.c.) these words 
are surely to be restored in the missing part of the line, as the list of objects is almost identical. It is to be noted that 
in these inscriptions the objects in the Opisthodomos are recorded on the same stele as those in the Neos Hecatompedos 
without a new heading or even a break in the line. It is hard to believe that this method would have been followed, 
if the Opisthodomos had been in another building. It is to be observed that from 398/7 B.c. we also have the be- 
ginning of an inventory of objects & rod émicOoddyou (I. G., II, 2 and 5, 653). 

3 Dérpfeld (Ath. Mitt., XII, 1887, pp. 203-206; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 22) has explained the removal as 
due to the burning of the Hecatompedon (identified by him with the Old Temple) in 406 B.c. The objects formerly 
kept in the “Parthenon” and the Opisthodomos (in the Hecatompedon) were now moved to the east cella of the 
Parthenon, and the treasury was established in the “Parthenon,” where it remained until the Hecatompedon was 
rebuilt. The completion of this work and the return of the treasury to its former place were celebrated by Aristophanes 
in the lines of the Plutus already quoted. The inscriptions, however, show that the Opisthodomos was in use ten years 
before the Plutus was performed. 


474. THE ERECHTHEUM 


silver pitchers, seals, and rings. Many of them are of gilded wood or bronze, and none seem 
to be of great value. The things left in the Opisthodomos were all in chests (xSwrés, 
x.B&rva), and comprised small objects in gold and ivory, seals, rings, and so forth, belonging 
in part to Artemis Brauronia. Everything here mentioned might have been safely kept in 
a well-protected portico. 

While all this evidence, epigraphical and literary, contains nothing which directly pro- 
hibits the identification of the Opisthodomos with the rear rooms of the old Hecatompedon, 
it is also perfectly intelligible, if we suppose, as we very reasonably may, that the Opistho- 
domos was the general and popular name for that part of the Parthenon which lay behind 
the cella, but that, when for official purposes it was necessary to distinguish between the 
ereat western room and its portico, the former was called the ‘‘ Parthenon,” the latter the 
‘‘Opisthodomos,’’ — its natural designation to a Greek.’ The conclusion, therefore, agrees 
with that already drawn from the inscriptions referring to the épxaios vews: — If the Heca- 
tompedon was rebuilt after the Persian Wars and again restored after the fire of 406 B.c., 
sundry passages in literature and inscriptions may be interpreted as referring to it, but all 
of these supposed references are perfectly intelligible and capable of reasonable explanation 
without resorting to this hypothesis, which we have found somewhat improbable in view 
of our information as to the intentions of the Athenians when they planned and built the 
Erechtheum. 

It remains to inquire whether more definite information can be gleaned from the state- 
ments of later writers. The chief source here is, of course, Pausanias, but his contribution 
on this point cannot well be separated from his general description of the Erechtheum, 
which will be treated in the following section. There are, however, three other passages 
which have been often cited in this discussion, and which call for some consideration. 

The first is the account of a prodigy which occurred in 306 B.c., as recorded by a con- 
temporary, Philochorus, who was himself called upon to interpret its significance. His own 
words are cited by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, epi Aewdpxov, 3, who first quotes from the 
eighth book of Philochorus a brief account of the arrival of Demetrius Poliorcetes in Athens 
during the archonship of Anaxicrates (307/6 B.c.), and the consequent flight of many 
Athenians, and adds: — ’Ep 6 rf &varn dnot- Tod 8’ énavrod rodde SueNObvTos, érépov 8’ elot- 


OvTOS, €V AKpoTOAEL TNMELOY éyEvETO TOLOUTOV: KUwY els TOV THs IloALddos vewy elaeAOodoa Kal dvca eis 


1 This is substantially the view of Petersen (Jb. Arch. I., XXII, 1907, pp. 14-16). It seems to offer a reasonable 
and probable explanation of the Greek texts and inscriptions, although, like all the other theories about the Opistho- 
domos, it lacks conclusive proof and can only be accepted as presenting on the whole fewer difficulties than any other 
solution yet offered. 

The theory, suggested by Curtius (Stadigeschichte von Athen, pp. 132, 152) and developed independently by White 
(Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., VI, 1895, pp. 1-53), which identifies the Opisthodomos with the western rooms of the Heca- 
tompedon, but holds that this was the only part of the temple which was rebuilt after the Persian invasion, and that 
it continued to exist as a detached building south of the Cecropium and Pandroseum, rests chiefly on the statements 
of scholiasts and lexicographers who describe the Opisthodomos as a building behind the temple of Athena (i. e., the 
Erechtheum). Its validity need not be considered here, for if it be accepted, it implies the disappearance of the cella 
of the Hecatompedon and, consequently, the identification of the Erechtheum with the apxaios vews of the fifth and 
fourth centuries, and it is only with this identification that we are now concerned. 


HISTORY 475 


70 Ilavdpoceov, éxi tov Bwudv avaBaca Tov ‘Epxeiov Avds tov bro 7TH éAala Karéxetro. TaTpLov 
6’ éori tots ’A@nvaios Kiva py) avaBaivew eis axpdtoAw. The extract then relates another 
wonder, the visibility of a star in bright sunshine, and the interpretation of these signs 
by Philochorus as portending the peaceful return of the fugitives, an event which duly 
occurred after a short interval. 

According to this story the dog went into the temple of the Polias and then into the 
Pandroseum where it jumped upon the altar of Zeus Herceus beneath the olive and lay 
down. The brief and simple narrative certainly gives the impression that the Pandroseum 
was entered directly from the temple of the Polias, — a course which is perfectly intelligible 
if this temple were the Erechtheum, since the dog could enter by either the North Portico 
or the Porch of the Maidens and pass by the west door from the Prostomiaion into the 
Pandroseum. If on the other hand the Hecatompedon is meant, it becomes necessary to 
suppose either that the dog first ran into and out of its cella and then descended through 
the Porch of the Maidens into the Pandroseum, or else, if this route is deemed unduly 
circuitous, that there was a side door on the north side of the cella and steps down into the 
Pandroseum.! The brevity of the passage certainly makes it somewhat vague, but so far 
as it admits of any conclusion, it favors the identification of the Erechtheum with the temple 
of the Polias, that is, with the dpxaios vews. 

The second passage, and the only one in Greek literature in which the name dpxaios 
vews appears, occurs in Strabo’s very brief account of Athens. After describing the desolate 
condition of Munychia and Piraeus, and the destruction of the Long Walls, first by the 
Spartans and later by Sulla, he speaks thus of the city (IX, 16, C 396): T6.6’ aorv aire 
mwéTpa €oTly ev TEOiw TEpLOLKOULEVN KUKAw: él bé TH TETPA TO THS ’AONvaGs iepov 6 TE ApXatos vews 6 THs 
TloAddos év @ 6 doBeoros AVxvos Kal 6 ILapHevaw dv éroinoer “Ixrivos, ev @ TO TOU Pevdiov Epyov EXepav- 
twov 4 ’“A@nva. adda yap els TAROOS EuTintwv TaV Tepl THS TOMEWS TalTNS LuvouMerwY TE Kal dLa- 
Bowpevev Oxvd TrEovatew, un TUUBH THs Tpobécews ExrecEiv THY ypapnyv. Emerce yap 0 Pynow ‘Hyyotas 
** 600 THY aKkpoToAL Kal TO TEpLTTHs TpLalyns exEtOc onpetoy, 6p THv ’"ENevoiva, Kal Tv lepdv yeyova 
uborns:...° ovTos pev ovv évds euvnaOn T&v ev axpoTode onuetwv, IloNéuwy 6’ 6 TEpinynTHs TETTApA 
BuBdrLa ouvéypaye wept Tav dvabnudrwv Trav év axporddre. Overcome by the difficulty of selection 
amid the innumerable monuments and legends of Athens, Strabo confines himself to a mere 
mention of two temples of Athena on the Acropolis, — the old temple of the Polias with the 
ever-burning lamp, and the Parthenon with the chryselephantine statue by Phidias. This 
restraint is justified by the example of Hegesias, who mentioned only one object on the Acrop- 
olis, 76 repirrfs Tpraivns éxeiO. onuetov — though Polemon had filled four books with a descrip- 
tion of its votive offerings — and only one deme, Eleusis, out of one hundred and seventy- 
four rich in legend and history. In view of Strabo’s extreme brevity and the probability 
that the buildings are not chosen for their intrinsic interest but rather for the lamp and the 


1 Cf. Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 35. There is no other evidence for the existence of such a door 
and steps. 


476 THE ERECHTHEUM 


statue within them, it cannot be argued that the dpyatos vewss must be the Erechtheum be- 
cause so beautiful a building would not be passed over in silence, if the Parthenon were 
mentioned. All that can be gleaned from this passage is that the épxaios vews contained 
the golden lamp, also described by Pausanias.! Its identity depends upon the interpretation 
of the latter’s narrative. Strabo by himself contributes nothing to the solution of the 
problem.’ 

The third passage, which approaches more nearly to direct evidence than any of the 
inscriptions or other references yet considered, is found in Vitruvius, IV, 8, 4. The author 
discusses in the opening sections of the chapter various forms of circular temples and the 
arrangement of their columns with reference to principles already stated, and continues: 


Item generibus alits constituuntur aedes 
ex isdem symmetriis ordinatae et alio genere 
dispositiones habentes, uti est Castoris in 
circo Flaminio et inter duos lucos Vevovrs, 
item argutius® Nemori Dianae, columnis 
adiectis dextra et sinistra ad umeros pronat. 
Hoc autem genere primo facta est, uti est 
Castoris in circo, Athenis in arce et in Attica 
Sunio Palladis Minervae. Earum non aliae 
sed eaedem sunt proportiones; cellae enim 
longitudinibus duplices sunt ad latitudines 
utt reliquae; ex is omnia* quae solent esse 
in frontibus ad latera sunt translata. 


‘There are also other kinds of temples, 
constructed in the same symmetrical pro- 
portions and yet with a different kind of 
plan: for example, the temple of Castor in 
the district of the Circus Flaminius, that of 
Vejovis between the two groves, and still 
more ingeniously the temple of Diana in 
her sacred grove, with columns added on 
the right and left at the flanks of the pro- 
naos. Temples of this kind, like that of 
Castor in the Circus, were first built in 
Athens on the Acropolis, and in Attica at 
Sunium to Pallas Minerva. The propor- 
tions of them are not different, but the same 
as usual. For the length of their cellae is 
twice the width, as in other temples; but 
all that we regularly find in the front of 
others is in these transferred to the sides.” 
(Morgan’s translation.) 


1 The extinction of this lamp during the occupation of the Acropolis by Ariston (86 B.c.) is noticed by Plutarch 
(Sulla, 18; Numa, 9), but without mention of the temple in which it stood. 

2 The appearance of the words dpxatos vews in Strabo alone among Greek writers is curious, more especially as 
by his time, if we may judge from the inscriptions, this name was no longer in official use. The probable explanation 
is that he derived it from his source. Long ago Niese pointed out that Strabo had very little personal knowledge of 
Greece apart from Corinth (Hermes, XIII, 1878, pp. 42-43), and further that the description of Greece and the islands 
(Books VIII—X) was very largely drawn from the commentary on the Homeric Catalogue by Apollodorus of Athens 
(Rh. Mus., XXXII, 1877, pp. 267 ff.; cf. Schwartz, Pauly-Wissowa, I, cols. 2863-2871, especially 2868). Although 
nothing else in this section on Athens can be surely assigned to Apollodorus, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose 
that the unusual adpxatos vews is derived from him. In commenting on the reference to Athens and Erechtheus in the 
Catalogue (see above, p. 432) the Athenian would be more than likely to apply this name to the building which he 
regarded as the successor of the Homeric temple, whether Hecatompedon or Erechtheum. 

3 argutius, codd.; augustius, Krohn. 

4 uti reliqua exisona, codd.; reliquae; ex is omnia, Krohn; reliquae; etst omnia, Choisy. 


HISTORY 477 


The distinguishing feature of these temples is evidently the addition of columns on the 
right and left ‘“‘ad wmeros pronai.’”’ This phrase is usually understood to mean that the 
front portico was carried around the corners for a short distance along the sides, but it has 
been suggested with much probability by Petersen! that the columns were added on the 
right and left sides of the portico between the antae and the corner columns, so that the 
portico was not broadened but deepened by them, as for example in the North Portico of 
the Erechtheum. Since the three Roman temples have disappeared, it is impossible to 
verify the meaning of the passage from their plans. Vitruvius next points out that the first 
examples of this type — that of the temple of Castor in the Circus — were at Athens on 
the Acropolis and in Attica at Sunium. In both these temples the proportions were normal, 
the length being twice the breadth, but ‘‘what is wont to be on the fronts has been trans- 
ferred to the sides.” This last statement at once identifies the temple on the Acropolis 
with the Erechtheum,’ since it obviously describes the substitution of the porticoes on the 
north and south for the usual one at the west end.2 Under these circumstances the exact 
force of the words Palladis Minervae becomes of considerable importance. It is the general 
practice of Vitruvius in referring to a temple to name the deity to whom it belonged, as 
a modern writer naturally gives the saint’s name or other title in mentioning a church, 
and, quite apart from this obviously desirable habit, the ordinary reader would surely 
understand from the phrase ‘‘ A thenis in arce et in Attica Sunio Palladis Minervae”’ that both 
temples were dedicated to Pallas. Therefore, unless we limit Palladis Minervae solely to 
the second member and leave the temple on the Acropolis anonymous, in violation both of 
Vitruvian usage and ordinary intelligibility, or else assume a mistake in nomenclature,’ this 
passage contains a direct statement by Vitruvius, or more probably by his Greek source, 
that the Erechtheum was a temple of Athena. Since apparently no one believes that there 
were three temples of Athena on the Acropolis at the same time (Erechtheum, Hecatom- 


1 Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 143-144. The same idea was put forward in 1806 by Thomas Gabb in his Finis 
Pyramidis; or, Disquisitions concerning the antiquity and scientific end of the great Pyramid of Giza, etc., pp. 268-269; 
but his comments, which contain some just criticism of Stuart, seem to have remained unnoticed. 

2 This identification seems to have been first made by Thomas Gabb in his Finis Pyramidis, pp. 267-272, in 
contradiction to Stuart, who had endeavored to refer this passage to the Parthenon: cf. also Stuart and Revett?, 
Il, p. 37, note b. 

Since the discovery that the great temple at Sunium was dedicated to Poseidon, the temple of Athena has been 
identified with the building excavated by Stais (’E¢. ’Apx., XVIII, 1900, cols. 122-131, pl. 8; XX XV, 1917, pp. 178- 
187, pls. 5-7, with restorations by Orlandos). It was a semi-peripteral Ionic temple, 14.78 m. by 19.34 m. on the peri- 
style, and 8.60 m. by 13.40 m. inside the cella, with ten columns across the east front and thirteen along the south side, 
counting the corner column twice. There was also a single column between the corner column and the anta (ad wmerum 
according to Petersen’s interpretation) at the west end of the south side, and at the north end of the east front. There 
were antae at the southwest and at the northeast corners, but none at the southeast. The proportions of the temple 
are wholly different from those given by Vitruvius, since the ratio for the peristyle is 1 to 1.8, and for the cella about 
2 to 3. 

3 It seems unnecessary to limit this statement to the North Portico only (Petersen, op. cit., p. 144) on the ground 
that, as it contains the principal entrance to this part of the temple, it alone has been really transferred from the west 
end. 

4 Cf. Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, p. 26. 


478 THE ERECHTHEUM 


pedon, and Parthenon),! this statement, if it be accepted as accurate — and we have been 
unable as yet to find any conclusive evidence to the contrary, — creates at least a very 
strong probability, if not an absolute certainty, in favor of the identification of the apxaios 
yews with the Erechtheum, and if that is once admitted, any reconstruction of the Heca- 
tompedon after 406 B.c. becomes at once very unlikely, since the chief reason for believing 
in its survival is its supposed identity with the dpxatos vews. 

4. Tur History or THE TEMPLE AND THE DeEscRIPTION OF PaAUSANIAS. — On the 
history of the Erechtheum after its completion our authorities are almost wholly silent. 
Indeed, if it be not the same as the old temple of the Polias, it receives little more than 
a passing mention,? except in the description by Pausanias and in the pseudo-Plutarchian 
life of the orator Lycurgus.’ The latter passage tells us nothing about the building itself, 
but shows that toward the end of the fourth century B.c. Habron, son of Lycurgus, dedi- 
cated a panel, painted by Ismenias of Chalcis,4 on which were represented those Butadae 
who had held the hereditary priesthood of Poseidon, and, apparently at the end, Habron 
himself handing to his brother Lycophron the symbolic trident in token of his surrender 
of the priesthood which had fallen to him.’ To the same period, if not to the same dedica- 
tion, may be assigned the wooden statues of Lycurgus and his three sons, the work of the 
sons of Praxiteles. A genealogical painting of the Butadae is noticed by Pausanias, but 
he says nothing about the statues, which had probably perished long before his visit. For 
it is clear from a study of the building that an event of considerable importance in its 
history has left no trace in the records which have come down to us. 

This event was the fire which seriously damaged the interior of the building, and neces- 
sitated extensive repairs, especially at the west end and in the North Portico.’ We have 


1 Those who maintain that the Hecatompedon survived as the temple of Athena in which was the ancient statue, 
hold also that the Erechtheum, whatever the original intention of its builders may have been, never became in fact 
a temple of Athena but only of her oivvac., Poseidon-Erechtheus, Hephaestus, and Butes; see Dorpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., 
XXXIV, 1919, pp. 24, 33. 

2 Such, e.g., as Plutarch, Sympos. Quaest., IX, 6, of Poseidon: &raida (at Athens) ved xowwvet pera. rijs "AOnvas; 
Hesychius, s. v. oixovpév d¢w- tov THs Tlo\rddos bAaka Spaxovra... & TG tepS Tod ’Epexbéws ; Cicero, De Nat. Deor., III, 
49: Hrechtheus cuius Athenis et delubrum vidimus et sacerdotem. It is clear that Plutarch regarded the temple as be- 
longing jointly to Athena and Poseidon. 

3 Vitae X Orat. 843 E: Karyov 6¢ 76 yévos drwrdrw piv &xd Bobrov kat ’Epex0éws rod I's kal ‘Adaiorou: ra 8’ éyyuratw 
amo Avxoundovs Kal Avxobpyov, ods 6 dijuos tadats ériunoe Snuocia: Kal tori airy 4 Kataywyh Tod yévous T&v lepacapméevew Tod 
Tocedévos ev rivakt Tedelw, ds dvaxeirar év “Epex0elw, yeypappevos bx’ "Iounviou tod Kadxiéws’ cal elxdves EbVAwat Tod Te Av- 
kobpyou kal r&v vidy abrov, “ABpwvos Avxovpyou Avxédpovos, as eipyacavTo Tivapxos kai Kn¢uoddoros, of Ipagirédous viets: tov 
dé rivaka avebnkev “ABpwv 6 mais aitod, Maxey & Tod yévous Ti Lepwobvny, Kal Tapaxwphoas TE adEAPG AvKdppore’ Kat dua TOOTO 
weroinrat 6 “ABpwr mpoodisods aird tiv rplaway. On the source of this passage, see above, p. 452, note 6. 

* Ismenias of Chalcis is known only from this passage; Overbeck, Antike Schriftquellen, p. 369, No. 1974; A. 
J. Reinach, Recueil Milliet, teates grecs et latins relatifs 4 Vhistoire de la peinture antique, 1, pp. 304-305, No. 386. 

* On the possible character of this genealogical painting, see Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 107-112. He compares 
the grouping of figures on the great amphorae of southern Italy. Reinach (J. c.) limits the painting to seven figures, 
beginning with Lycomedes (ca. 450 B.c.). 

® On the damage wrought by this fire and on the later repairs, see above, Ch. I, pp. 178-180; Ch. II, pp. 223, 
224. In such a fire the wooden statues by Timarchus and Cephisodotus may well have perished. This fire cannot be 
that of 406 B.c. Such an identification implies that the western part of the Erechtheum, if not the whole building, 
was left under a temporary roof for nearly four hundred years, — surely a most improbable supposition. It seems in- 


HISTORY 479 


already seen that the carving and general workmanship in these repairs display a marked 
similarity with the remains of the temple of Rome and Augustus, and that the date thus 
suggested is confirmed by the presence in the foundation of this temple of a block from the 
Greek cornice of the Erechtheum (p. 75). The dedication of the new temple! shows that it 
is later than the year 27 B.c. in which the emperor assumed the title of Augustus (DeBaorés), 
but it is probably not much later, since, as Graindor has pointed out,? the Athenians, who 
had sided with Antony, had every reason to propitiate Augustus without delay. We may 
then fairly assume that the repairs on the Erechtheum were undertaken not far from 25 B.c. 
There is no clue to the year of the fire, but the fact that temporary repairs were under- 
taken at the west end (pp. 178-180) indicates that the Athenians did not feel able to 
rebuild the temple immediately, and it is very possible that a number of years elapsed be- 
tween the fire and the Roman restoration. 

About one hundred and eighty years later Pausanias composed the description of the 
Erechtheum, which from the first identification of the temple by Spon has occupied a chief 
place in the numerous attempts at its restoration and interpretation. Although the dis- 
covery of the inscriptions relating to its construction and especially the increasingly inten- 
sive study of the actual remains have introduced new factors into the problem of the 
Erechtheum and rendered obsolete many earlier opinions, yet from first to last conformity 
with the supposed testimony of Pausanias has been generally regarded as the final and con- 
clusive test of each new theory. Nor does such a test appear in any way unreasonable. 
It may fairly be argued that the explicit statements of one who saw the temple in its ancient 
condition ought not to be disregarded without very positive evidence of their error. It is 
in the practical application of this principle that difficulties begin to arise, for it must be 
admitted that the closer and more accurate analysis of the style of Pausanias which has 
developed in recent years, however much it may have contributed to a better understanding 
of the peculiarities of the author, has done very little to advance our knowledge of the 
Erechtheum. In fact an examination of the successive and widely divergent restorations 
which have been proposed during the past hundred and fifty years, and each of which is 
carefully, and often very successfully, shown by its author to be in exact accord with the 
testimony of Pausanias, suggests that this testimony is itself by no means free from am- 
biguity, and that, while Pausanias undoubtedly furnishes information of great value on 
certain points, it is often quite as necessary to explain Pausanias from the Erechtheum as 
the Erechtheum from Pausanias. The primary source must always be the building itself; 
credible that Lycurgus, the hereditary priest of Poseidon-Erechtheus, should have permitted the “sea” of this god 
to remain in such a condition, and that too at a time when, under his administration, the temple treasures and the 
sacred vessels were greatly increased, much money accumulated on the Acropolis, and many public buildings erected. 

1 7. G. II, 63. O¢€% Poyp xal Z[eBaor]G Kaloapr. 

2 P. Graindor, ‘ Chronologie des Archontes Athéniens sous l’Empire,’ Mémoires de l’ Académie Royale de Belgique, 
Classe des lettres, etc., in 4°, Sér. II, Tome VIII, p. 34. The archon Areios appears again in the inscription from the 


wall of the Cecropium (J. G., III, 1276; see above, Ch. I, p. 183, Fig. 84), but his year of office can be fixed only as 
falling between 27/26 and 18/17 B.c. 


480 THE ERECHTHEUM 


next may properly rank the accounts of the commissioners who superintended its erection. 
The evidence of Pausanias is highly important as confirmation, supplement, or explanation 
of these sources, but it cannot rightly be admitted in contradiction to them, except so far 
as it may be possible here and there to explain a divergence as due to alterations introduced 
during the Roman repairs. Bearing these limitations in mind we may now examine this 
description in detail.! 

In his account of the Acropolis Pausanias after leaving the Parthenon notices first 
several statues, which apparently stood southeast or south of that temple, and then the 
eroups of combatants presented by Attalus of Pergamon, some of which certainly stood 
along that part of the south wall of the Acropolis which was above the theatre of Dionysus.’ 
Next the presence of a statue of Olympiodorus leads to a somewhat lengthy account of his 
services to Athens. Returning from this digression he mentions a neighboring bronze image 
of Artemis Leucophryene dedicated by the sons of Themistocles, and then, evidently feel- 
ing that his enumeration of the wonders of the Acropolis is becoming too detailed, he 
checks himself with the remark that he must push on with his subject since he has to tray- 
erse the whole of Greece.? There follows a brief sentence about the sculptor Endoios and 
his statue of a seated Athena dedicated by Callias,4 and then we are at the Erechtheum. 
It thus appears that in all that portion of the Acropolis lying east of the Parthenon and the 
Erechtheum Pausanias selects for notice only three statues, and even for these gives no 
hint of their position. He therefore arrives at the Erechtheum without furnishing any in- 
formation as to the route he has followed since leaving the south wall of the Acropolis, or 
as to the situation of the building, which he proceeds to describe as follows: 


"Eote 6€ kal oixnua ’Epéxfevov xadovpevov: 
Tpo de THs égddov Atos éoTt Bwyos ‘Trarou, évOa 
Eupuxov Ovovow ovdév, wéupata dé Oévres obdéev 
ért olvy xpnoacbar vouicovow. écedOodar b€ 
elat Bwuol, Iocedavos, éh’ od kal ’Epexbet 
Glovow &k Tov partebyatos, kal jpwos Bovrov, 
tpitos 6€ ‘Hdaiorov. ypadal dé émi rv rolxwy 
TOU yevous eigi Tod Bovraddv. Kal (durdodv yap 
éoTt 70 olknua) Kai tdwp éorly &bov Oaddacrov 
& ppéatt (rodro wey Batya ov péya: Kal yap 


ev t a Lal A ” \ 
Ogol péecoyatay oixovo.w d&Adols TE ~oTL Kal 


“There is also a building called Erech- 
theum; and before the entrance is an altar 
of Zeus Hypatos, where they offer nothing 
that has life, but it is their custom to place 
cakes thereon and not even to add any 
wine. On entering there are altars, one of 
Poseidon on which they also make offerings 
to Erechtheus in consequence of an oracle, 
another of the hero Butes, and a third of 
Hephaestus. There are also on the walls 
paintings of the family of the Butadae. 


1 On the fallibility of Pausanias see the remarks of Holleaux, Mélanges Henri Weil, p. 206; Lechat, Au Musée 
de lV’ Acropole, p. 419, who roundly declares “Pausanias n’était qu’une béte.” Robert, Pausanias als Schriftsteller, 
p. 40, notes that detailed descriptions of buildings are extremely rare in Pausanias. 

? Plutarch, Antonius, 60. A gale blew into the theatre the statue of Dionysus from the Gigantomachia. 

® Pausanias I, 26, 4: Ac? dé we aduxécOax rod Aoyou mpdow, wavTa duolws éresvovTa Ta ‘EAAVUKA. 


* On this statue and its sculptor, see Lechat, Au Musée de l’Acropole, pp. 415-441 (= R. Et. Gr., V, 1892, pp. 


385 ff.; VI, 1893, pp. 23 ff.). 


| 
; 
| 


HISTORY 481 


Kapolv ’Adpodtoredow: adda 7Od€ 76 péap és 
avyypadiy Tapéxerat KuuaTwy Hyov él vorw 
mvevoartt) Kal Tpralvns éorly &v TH rérpa oxfua: 
ratra dé Néyerar TlocedGri wapripia és THY ap- 


pirBnrnow THs xwpas davjvar. 


‘lepa pev ths “AOnvas éorw 7} Te GAA TOALS 
Kal ) Tao Ouoiws vq (Kai yap dcots Oeods Kabé- 
oTnxey adXovs & Tots Shnuots céBew ovd& TL 
nocov thy ’AOnvay ayovow év Tish), TO dé ayLw- 
TaTov €&V KOLV@ ToAAOLs TPOTEPOY VomLabEY ErETW 
Hh ovvyOov aro Tv Sjuwv éotiv ’AOnvas ayahua 
3 oO nN > f Ul \ 3 , t 
€v TH viv akpowO\eL, TOTE OE dvouafomévyn TOdEL- 
onun dé és avro Exe TWecety Ex TOU ovpavod. Kal 

Lal \ t b] ba ” ee 7 A 
TOUTO Mev OUK eTeketuL, EiTE OUVTWS eElTE AAAWS 
exer’ AVxvov b€ TH DEG xpvooty KaddXipaxos 
évoinoey. éutAnoavTes 5€ éXalov TOY ALXVOY 

\ > A nN r ov J / e / 
THY avTHVY TOD péAAOVTOS ETOUS aVapEévovaLY HUE- 

cy A > Lal A \ 3 tal ld 
pav: €\aoy 6é éexetvo Tov weTakd érrapKet xpovov 
T@ AVXVW KATA TA aUTA év Nueépa Kal vuKTL dal- 
vovtt. Kat ot Aivov Kapraciov OpvadXis &veotw, 
6 6 mupt Aivwy povoy ovk €oTLv AAwotporv. Powe 
6€ brép Tov AVXVOU xaAKoUs avnKwy és TOV dpo- 
gdov avacnra THY aTulda. 6 d€ KadXipaxos 6 TOY 
AUXVOY ToLnaas, ATObéwY TOY TPwWTWY és avTnV 
THY TEXYNV, O'TW Todia TAaVTUV EoTiY ApLoTos 
AJA \ , lal > U ¥ st w 
wate Kal AWWous tp@ros éerpirnoe, Kal dvoua Eero 
Katatnéirexvov 7 Oeuevwy GAAwWY KaTéaTHOEV Ed’ 


avT@. 


And (for the building is double) there is 
also sea water within in a well. (Now this 
is no great marvel; for it occurs also at 
other inland places, as for example at 
Aphrodisia in Caria; but this well here is 
noteworthy for a sound of waves when a 
south wind has blown.) And there is the 
form of a trident in the rock; it is said that 
these appeared as evidence for Poseidon in 
the dispute about the country. 

‘While the rest of the city and indeed 
the whole land is sacred to Athena (for 
even those who in the demes are wont to 
worship other gods, none the less hold 
Athena in honor), still the object which by 
common consent was held to be the holiest 
many years before the people came together 
from the demes [into Athens] is a statue 
of Athena on the present Acropolis, then 
called Polis; legend declares that it fell 
I shall not enter on the 
question whether this is so or not; but Cal- 
limachus made a golden lamp for the god- 
dess. They fill the lamp with oil and then 
wait until the same day of the following 
year; and that supply of oil suffices during 
the entire interval for the lamp, although 
it burns perpetually by day and by night. 
The wick is of Carpasian flax, which is the 
only kind of flax that does not catch fire. 
A bronze palm tree above the lamp, reach- 
ing to the ceiling, draws off the fumes. 
Callimachus, who made the lamp, though 
falling behind the leaders in art itself, in 
dexterity is so far the best of all, that he 
first used the borer on marble, and gave 
himself the name of ‘‘extreme refiner of 
art,” or when others gave it to him, he ap- 


from heaven. 


propriated it to himself. 


482 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Ketrar 6¢ év 7@ vad ris Todados ‘“Epuys 
EbNov, Kéxpomos eivat eyouevov avabnua, vo 
KAddwy mupalyns ov GLVOTTOS. 

’Avabhpara b&é drdca aia Oyo, TAY ev 
apxatwy dippos oxradias éort, Aardadov Tolnua, 
Addupa 6é dd Mjdwy Macroriov Owpaé, os elXev 
év IDNaraais tiv Hyeuoviay THs immov, Kal akl- 
vakns Mapédoviov deyouevos eivar. Magiorvov 
uv o) TeXeUTHTavTAa bd Tv ’AOnvaiwy oida 
imméwy: Mapédoviov dé paxecapévov Aaxedatpo- 
vious évavtia Kal bro avdpds ZraptTiatov Te- 
aovtos ov6’ av wbrebéEavto apxnv, ovde tows 
’AOnvatos rapyKay dépecbar Aakedatmovior Tov 


AKLWAKND. 


Ilepi 5 THs EXalas obey Exovow AAXoO eEtmeEty 
TH Oe@ wapripiov yevécbat TovTO és TOY ayava 
A > \ ial , I \ \ ig 
Tov emt TH XwWpQ. Eyovar dé Kal TAdE, KaTAKAv- 
Ojvar wev THY édatav, nvika 6 Mndos thy wow 
évérpnoey ’AOnvaiows, kataxavbetoay de avfnue- 


A 4 ‘4 \ U Lal t 
pov dcov Te él blo BAaoTHoaL THXELS. 


TQ vag dé rHs “AOnvas Lavdpdcov vads 

U > 3) of t 3 A 
auvexns éoTt Kal éote ldvépoaos és TV Tapa- 
Katabnkny avaitios Tay ddeApGv worn. (1, 26,5- 


27,2), 


“Then there is in the temple of the 
Polias a wooden Hermes, said to be a dedi- 
cation of Cecrops, invisible under branches 
of myrtle. There are other dedications 
worth notice, — among the antiquities a 
folding stool, the work of Daedalus, and 
spoils from the Medes, the corselet of Ma- 
sistius, who commanded the cavalry at 
Plataea, and what is said to be the dagger 
of Mardonius. Now I know that Masistius 
was killed by the Athenian cavalry; but 
since Mardonius fought against the Lace- 
daemonians, and fell by the hand of a Spar- 
tan, the Athenians would not have received 
this dagger originally, nor are the Lacedae- 
monians likely to have given it to them. 

‘“‘ About the olive tree they have nothing 
else to say than that it came into being as 
evidence for the goddess in the contest 
about the country. They tell this story 
too, that the olive tree was burned up, 
when the Medes set fire to Athens, but 
though burned up, it put forth on the same 
day a new shoot two cubits long. 

‘‘ Adjoining the temple of Athena is a 
temple of Pandrosus; and Pandrosus is the 
only one of the sisters blameless in the 
matter of the charge entrusted to them.” 


That Pausanias in this passage — at any rate in its earlier portion — is referring to 
the building which we call the Erechtheum cannot be doubted, although the identification 
rests, as will appear on further examination, rather upon a combination of his statements 
with other evidence, than upon any precise description given by him of the striking or 
characteristic features of the temple.! In fact the vagueness, already noticed, which leaves 
undetermined the position of the Erechtheum with reference to other monuments, pervades 


1 It is significant of this lack of precision that the first identification of the Erechtheum rested upon misinterpre- 
tation both of the text of Pausanias and of the remains of the building. The words é:rdodv yap éore 76 olxnua were 
understood to describe two separate, but adjoining, temples, and these were found in the North Portico — then 
walled up and resembling a small temple, — and in the main building, or, according to others, in the Porch of the 
Maidens: see below, pp. 530, 533 f., and the passages quoted in Appendix A, III-IX. 


HISTORY 483 


the whole narrative, perhaps under the influence of that need for compression of which 
Pausanias had so recently become aware. Thus at the very outset the position of the en- 
trance is not stated, and uncertainty on this point naturally renders impossible any con- 
clusive interpretation of the description of the interior. 

In seeking to determine the way by which Pausanias probably entered, we may dismiss 
the door in the west wall, since this communicated solely with the enclosed Pandroseum, 
which is not mentioned until the end of the description and was surely not the starting point 
of the visit. Nor does an entrance through the Porch of the Maidens, which was favored by 
Michaelis,1 seem very probable. The chief arguments in its support are that, assuming 
the three altars and the ‘‘sea’”’ to have been in the western part of the building, it offers a 
more convenient access to one coming from the Parthenon than does the North Portico, 
and secondly, that if Pausanias had entered by the North Portico, he would have noticed 
at once the so-called ‘‘marks of the trident” in the crypt, since they were visible through 
the opening in the pavement. As regards this last argument it may be remarked that it is 
by no means certain that the marks in the crypt are those of the trident, and that, even if 
they are, it is perfectly natural for Pausanias to postpone noticing them until he describes 
the “‘sea” with which they were so closely connected by tradition. The first argument 
would be stronger, if we knew that Pausanias crossed directly from the Pergamene groups 
to the Erechtheum. If he followed the line of the wall of the Acropolis and approached the 
building from the east, the Porch of the Maidens was not much nearer than the North 
Portico. It is also to be kept in mind that the Porch of the Maidens was probably not an 
entrance for the general public (p. 111), such as an ordinary visitor like Pausanias would 
use, and such as is suggested by his use of the definite article (po ris éoddov) in describing it. 

There remain as possible entrances the doors in the East and North Porticoes, each of 
which is plainly the chief entrance to one of the two main divisions of the building. The 
former would naturally be reached first by any visitor approaching from the east or south- 
east, and it is not surprising that from the days of Stuart and Chandler it has been frequently 
assumed to be the entrance used by Pausanias, — a view recently defended at considerable 
length by Doérpfeld.2 The North Door can claim in its favor that as an entrance it was 
certainly larger and more imposing, and thus more likely to be called the entrance kar’ éoxnv ; 
but its choice implies a departure from the direct route, a passing of the East Portico, and a 
return thereto after visiting the western part of the building. General considerations of 
probability, however, cannot here lead to any definite results. It is necessary first to 
examine the rest of the description independently of any hypotheses as to its point of de- 
parture or its applicability to the existing remains.’ 

1 Michaelis, Jb. Arch. J., XVII, 1902, pp. 16, 81-84. He admits (p. 84) that it is hard to find room for the 
ancient altar of Zeus Hypatos, between the Hecatompedon and the Erechtheum east of the Porch of the Maidens. 

2 Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt.,.XX XVI, 1911, p. 48; Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 32 ff. 


3 The question would be settled in favor of the North Portico, if we could be sure that by the otknua ’"Epéx@eov 
xaNobpevov Pausanias meant only the western part of the building. This part alone is almost certainly called otknya 


484 THE ERECHTHEUM 


In front of the entrance stood an altar of Zeus Hypatos, on which only cakes were 
offered, unaccompanied even by libations of wine. From another passage in Pausanias ! 
we learn that the surname Hypatos and the ritual with its exclusion of bloody sacrifices 
were both attributed to Cecrops, and that the cakes were called é\avo. by the Athenians. 
This altar does not appear, at least under this name, in any other document relating to the 
Erechtheum. Near the East Portico stood in the fifth century an altar of Dione, and in 
the North Portico the altar of the Thyechoiis.2 It is hard to believe that an altar devoted 
to a very ancient cult, associated with Cecrops, could ever have borne the name of Dione, 
and although, as will appear later, there is no difficulty in identifying the altar of Zeus 
Hypatos with the altar of the Thyechoiis, there is no compelling reason for doing so, unless 
Pausanias entered by the North Door. The mention of this altar, therefore, furnishes no 
sure clue to his choice of an entrance. 

Inside the building were three more altars, dedicated to Poseidon-EHrechtheus, Butes, 
and Hephaestus. On the walls were paintings of the family of the Butadae, that is, in 
all probability, of the succession of hereditary priests of Poseidon-Erechtheus. ‘These 
paintings would seem to have replaced the work of Ismenias of Chalcis, dedicated by Ha- 
bron, which can hardly have survived the great fire which led to the Roman repairs. 
The altars have long since disappeared, but two thrones, for the priests of Butes and 
Hephaestus, have survived, and were joined together in April, 1918 (Fig. 206). They 
were originally carved from a single block of marble, 1.30 m. (4 At. ft.) long. The bottom 
is roughly dressed, as if for contact with earth, or perhaps with poros (not marble), and on 
the right end is anathyrosis (Fig. 206 c) showing that the block was in contact with an- 
other on that side. The left end is damaged. The throne of the priest of Butes is said 
to have been found near the Erechtheum;‘ that of the priest of Hephaestus has stood for 
some time on the terrace of the Hecatompedon, but the circumstances of its discovery are 
a few lines below, and it is natural to take the word in the same sense in the two neighboring sentences. Yet it would 
be strange, if Pausanias at the very outset limited his description to one part of the building without any indication 
that he was not describing the whole. 

1 Pausanias, VIII, 2,3. The human sacrifices of Lycaon are here contrasted with the gentler rites instituted by 
Cecrops: 6 yer yap Ala re dvouacey “Yrarov mp&ros kal dréca exer pox Tobrwr per Atlwoev obddéev OUoar, Téeupara bé émrxwpLa 
éri rod Bwuod Kabnyicer, & redavous Kadodow Ere Kal és juds ’APnvaitor. 

? On the altar of Dione, see Ch. IV, Inscription XVII, col. 1, ll. 37, 65; col. 1, ll. 49, 64. On the altar in the North 
Portico, Ch. I, pp. 107-109, Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 79, and Commentary, p. 318. 

° I.G., II, 38, 1656 (= III, 302): icpéws Bobrov. The stone was discovered by Stuart, who considered it part of a 
sarcophagus (Stuart and Revett, II, pp. 16, 22). It again disappeared, but was rediscovered in 1836; see Ross, 
Kunstblatt, 1836, p. 347 (Arch. Aufs., I, p. 116); Scholl, Archdologische Mittheilungen aus Griechenland, p. 120, No. 
167; Le Bas, Voyage archéologique, Inscriptions, I, pl. VIII, 6. The inscription on the other block, iepéws ‘Hdaicrou, 
seems never to have been published, though the throne has long been in plain view. A similar pair of thrones, 
inscribed a&pxovros and muppépov (I. G., II, 5, 1656, b, c), lie on the terrace of the Chalcotheca. It is improbable that 
these four thrones were originally in the theatre of Dionysus, although in dimensions and mouldings they closely 
resemble those in the orchestra. The inscriptions upon them are surely of the fourth century B.c., While those in 


the theatre are Roman or, rarely, Hellenistic. Moreover thrones inscribed iepéws ‘Hdaicrov, apxovros, and iepéws 
muppopou ef axpomdrews (I. G., IIT, 288, 254, 264) are still in the theatre. 


4 Stuart (l.c., p. 16) says distinctly ‘‘near these ruins,” not in them. The statement of Dittenberger (J. G., III, 302) 
that the throne was found “in Erechtheo” is wrong; Koehler (J. G., II, 3, 1656) says correctly “ad Erechtheum.” 


‘(SI6L ‘f IIMdV) SHNOUHL JO LNOWT 


« 


& 


(SI6L 


DNIMVUC OIMLAWOSI ‘V 


‘ IludV) SHNOWHL 40 GNA LHDIY GNV MOVE ‘0 
“SOLSHVHdGH AO ONY SALNA AO SLSHIYd AHL JO SHNOUHL FHL 


a 


= P He 
ee - 
SS ee =e are 


906 TUAOL 


[ 485 ] 


486 THE ERECHTHEUM 


unknown. There is no reason to suppose that these thrones ever stood inside the Erech- 
theum although they are certainly connected with its cults. 

The interpretation of the next sentence in the description involves the discussion of 
three questions: What is the meaning of the phrase durdodv yap éore 7d otxnua? What is 
the force of évdov? What is the oxjjua rpratvns? 

If the answer to the first question were to be determined solely from the use of dumAoby in 
similar phrases elsewhere in Pausanias, it would present no great difficulty. In four other 
passages ! a building is described as ‘‘double,” and in each case the context indicates that 
one of the rooms was behind or beside the other and differentiated in its use or dedication, 
but apparently on the same level. It must be remembered, however, that these limitations 
are by no means inherent in the word é:rdoiv, which simply denotes the division into two 
parts without any indication of the relative position of these parts, and in fact Lysias uses 
the word to describe a little house with two stories.? It has been argued that any such 
interpretation here is excluded,* because of the language of Pausanias in describing the 
ancient temple of Aphrodite-Morpho at Sparta. He does not call this a double building, 
and he distinctly states that it was the only temple known to him with an upper story 
(trepGov). This is, perhaps, a sound objection to some of the earlier reconstructions of the 
Erechtheum, such as that so vigorously defended by Bétticher, which filled the western 
half of the building with an upper floor at the level of the column bases on the west wall, 
as well as with stairways and crypts, but it appears to overlook the fact that a temple with 
a crypt is not the same as a temple with an upper story.” From the Greek words alone, 
therefore, no positive conclusion can be drawn beyond the presence of two rooms. Indeed 
this parenthetical remark about the division of the building would seem to be inserted here 
chiefly to emphasize the fact that the three altars and the uapripia of Poseidon were in 


1 The four passages are as follows: (1) II, 10, 2; at Sicyon in the sanctuary of Asclepius: IapedOotor 5é és Tov 
meplBorov & aproTepG Sumdovy Eorw olknua’ KEetTat dé “Tavos ev TH TpoTépw, Kal of wAny THs Kehadhs Ado ovdey Ere Nelwerar. TO 
évdorépw dé ’ATéANwWH Gvettar Kapvely, cai és ab76 obx ore wAHv Tots iepedow eoodos. Here the second room was plainly be- 
hind and entered from the first. 

(2) II, 25, 1; on the road from Argos to Mantinea: "Emi 6¢ rijs 6500 rabrys lepdv Sumdody rerolnrat, Kal rpds #Alov db- 
vovtos tcodov kal kata avatoNds érépay éxov. Here the two cellae are back to back with separate entrances; in the east- 
ern was a féavov of Aphrodite, in the western, one of Ares. 

(3) VI, 20,3; at Olympia on the side of Mt. Cronion: ’Ev per 54 7@ umpoabe rod vaod (Sumdods yap 54 memolnrat) THs 
Eidebvias Bwyds . . . & 6 TG HTds 6 Zwoirods Exer Tyuds. ‘The arrangement would seem to be that of the building at 
Sicyon, but Sosipolis was a snake-god, and it would be only natural if his sanctuary was a cave or subterranean 
chamber in the hillside. The sacred serpent of the Erechtheum, unnoticed by Pausanias, affords a striking parallel 
(ef. Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 99-100). 

(4) VIII, 9,1: “Eore 5& Mavrweiar vads Sirdods waded Tov KaTa péoov Toixw depyduevos* Tod vaod bé TH Mev Gyadwa 
éorw ’Aok\nmod, Téexvn ’"AAKapévous, Td 5é Erepov Anrods éorw iepdv kat Tav raidwv. Here the two temples may have stood 
side by side or back to back; xara pécov leaves the direction of the wall uncertain. 

2 Lysias, I, 9: Oixidvdy éori pou Sirdodv, toa Exov Ta dvw ois KATH. 

* Cf., e.g., Schubert, Phzlologus, XV, 1860, p. 394; Petersen, Burgtempel, p. 99. 

* IIT, 15, 10: UpoedGodor 5¢ ob zodd Adgos éorly ob peyas, ert Se aiT@ vads apxaios kat ’Adpodirns tdavoy Gr\ouerns. vaaev 
dé dy oda pdvy robry kal drepGov Aro Exwxoddunrar Mopdods lepov. 


’ Cf. Nilsson, J. H. S., XXI, 1901, p. 333. 


HISTORY. 487 


separate rooms, and that these rooms were of potentially equal importance, that is, did not 
stand to one another in the relation of pronaos, or vestibule, and cella. 

Nor is much more light thrown on the problem of the line of division by the presence of 
eéov in the phrase kai twp éorly &dov Oadrdoowv &v dpéarr. If we assume that the two 
rooms were at the same level, the language of Pausanias implies that the second room 
was entered from the first, but there seems no good reason why these words might not 
be used with equal right, if the second chamber were below and only accessible, or visible, 
from the first. No one, of course, doubts that the ‘‘sea”’ itself was subterranean, though it 
is almost equally certain that it was seen and heard through an opening in the pavement, 
surrounded by a curb — the zpoorédmov,!— and it is to the situation of this curb that at 
first sight the words of Pausanias appear to refer. 

Whether this view is correct becomes a little less certain when we examine the clause 
commencing kai rpraivns éoriv, which follows the parenthetical comment on the peculiarity 
to which this salt water owed its special reputation. Here the xai is naturally taken as 
connecting what follows with the clause ending é& ¢péar, if the intervening words are 
parenthetical. Even if they are not, the conjunction brings the oxjua tpraivns into close 
connection with the ¢péap, and contains no indication that the visitor has entered another 
room. The second room, therefore, is said to contain not only the “sea” & dpéart, but 
also év mérpa the cxjjua tpiaivys. The oxjua or “form” of the trident could be either a 
representation of a trident in the rock ?— perhaps the most natural interpretation of the 
word, — or merely the marks of the prongs, which is the meaning usually given it since 
the discovery of the holes in the rock beneath the pavement of the North Portico. What- 
ever the exact meaning of cyjua, the fact that this mark was ‘‘in the rock” shows that 
either the floor of this room was at this point close to the level of the Acropolis rock — that 
is, that it was below the level of the pavement in the western part of the building? — or 
else that like the ‘‘sea”’ the rock was visible through an opening in the floor. Certainly 
the language of Pausanias, if taken in its natural meaning, connects very closely the mark 
of the trident with the ‘‘sea,’’ and conveys the impression that both were in the second 
room shown to the traveller after entering the building, though it leaves entirely open the 
question whether this room was an inner or a subterranean chamber. 

There follows a surprising and apparently unmotivated break in the description. With- 
out any warning Pausanias suddenly recalls the special and universal reverence felt for 
Athena throughout Attica, and then, recurring to his proper subject, points out that the 
holiest image of the goddess, which had been generally honored even before the foundation 


1 See above, Ch. IV, Inscription II, col. 1, 1. 71; Commentary, p. 312. 

2 Such a representation of the head of a trident has been found by M. P. Nilsson “‘in the corner between the west 
transverse wall and the (more recent) north long wall, just in front of the so-called ‘postern’ in the north wall” (J.H.S., 
XXI, 1901, p. 326). Later visitors have found it impossible to identify this mark, and it is very doubtful whether it 
could ever have been easily seen from above in a dim light. Cf. also Michaelis, Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, p. 82, note 2. 

3 See Ch. I, pp. 158-159, 162-164. 


488 THE ERECHTHEUM 


of the city of Athens, was preserved on the Acropolis, although he discreetly declines to 
endorse the legend of its heavenly origin. For this statue, which is undoubtedly the 
dpxatov a&yadua of the inscription of 409 B.c.,’ Callimachus? had made a golden lamp, which 
was kept burning night and day, while above it a bronze palm tree, reaching to the ceiling, 
served as a chimney to carry away the fumes and smoke. Where were the statue and the 
lamp? There has been no intimation of a passage to another building or even to another 
room, and we might easily suppose that we were in the same room with the ‘‘sea”’ and 
the trident, and that the old statue and the golden lamp stood beside the “tokens”’ of the 
defeated Poseidon. Against this view may be urged not only its improbability, but the 
opening words of the next section: — xetras dé év TG vag rijs Hoduados. Here, as so often in 
Pausanias, 5¢ introduces a new item in his enumeration,’ but the addition of & 7@ va@ rijs 
Tlo\tdSos seems to imply that this was also the place of its predecessor; the Greek is not 
necessarily, or even probably, equivalent to éort 5é 6 vads ris Tlodvados &v @ xetra. We may 
fairly assume, therefore, without doing violence to the language of Pausanias that the old 
statue and the lamp were also in the vads of the Polias. 

This raises a new difficulty, for this vaés may be the cella of the Polias in the Erechtheum, 
or aseparate temple. Those who, like Dérpfeld, believe in the survival of the Hecatompe- 
don as the dpxatos vews naturally adopt the second alternative, but nothing in the Greek 
militates against the former. Here, as elsewhere, the interpretation of the passage depends 
upon considerations wholly apart from the indications furnished by Pausanias. 

The remainder of the description contributes little to our knowledge of the Erechtheum 
and its surroundings. The sacred olive is mentioned as the ‘‘token” of Athena, and there 
follows an improved version of the miraculous recovery after its burning by the Persians,’ 
but there is no hint of its position with reference to any building. In conclusion we learn 
that the temple of Pandrosus was contiguous (avvex7s) to the temple of Athena, which is, 
of course, the temple of the Polias just mentioned. Since we know that the Pandroseum 
lay just west of the Erechtheum (p. 119), we may fairly see in ovvexys a reference to the 
relative position of the two shrines rather than an assertion of the actual contact of their 
walls. The latter interpretation, indeed, is possible only on the double hypothesis that the 
whole Erechtheum was the temple of Athena, which is probable enough, and that the temple 
of Pandrosus occupied the position assigned to the Cecropium, which is very unlikely. The 
adjective seems more appropriate if the Erechtheum is meant by the temple of Athena, 
since the Pandroseum was certainly in contact with most of the west end of that building 
and was entered both from the North Portico and from the Prostomiaion (PLatTs I). On 

1 See Ch. IV, Inscription II, 1. 1; also pp. 298, 433, 456. 


2 The date of Callimachus cannot be determined by the presence of this lamp in the Erechtheum. Even if it 
were made just after the Persian Wars, it could perfectly well have been transported to the new temple along with 
the ancient image. 

* On 6é in Pausanias, see Belger, Berl. phil. W., XII, 1902, col. 100; Lechat, Au Musée de l’Acropole, p. 425, 
who well translates or: 5¢ by “Et puis il y a.” 

* Herodotus, VIII, 55; see above, p. 436. 


HISTORY 489 


the other hand it was separated from the cella of the Hecatompedon, if this were the temple 
of Athena, by the Erechtheum and the Cecropium, and could have been cuvexjs — if at all 
— only with the terrace wall north of the rear room of that temple. Moreover there is no 
evidence for a connection between the terrace of the Hecatompedon and the Pandroseum; 
rather they would seem to have been separated by the marble wall along the stylobate of 
the pre-Persian peristyle.! 

After this analysis of the description of Pausanias we may now endeavor to follow his 
route on the known plan of the Erechtheum, and to determine, amid his numerous am- 
biguities and uncertainties, which interpretation best harmonizes with the conclusions 
deduced from other evidence. We may begin by considering the consequences of an 
entrance through the eastern door.’ In this case the altar of Zeus Hypatos stood some- 
where east of the temple, or, if the words po ris éod50v are taken in the strictest sense, 
actually within the East Portico, where, however, it has surely left no trace. The room 
of the altars and paintings is the East Cella, which with three unbroken walls and the 
abundant light furnished by the two windows and the door was certainly well adapted for 
such a display. For the second room in the double building we must either assume a crypt 
beneath the East Cella or suppose that at this point Pausanias passes into the western part 
of the building. The former hypothesis falls since it is in contradiction with all that is known 
of the rock at the eastern end, where it is not only higher than farther west, but contains 
no especially deep cavities in which water might once have gathered. As to the other sup- 
position, it has been already pointed out (p. 150) that there are no signs of stairs along either 
side wall, nor is there any reason — except perhaps this passage — to assume the existence 
of any internal communication between the east and west parts of the building. Pausanias 
may have passed out of the East Cella after seeing the altars and entered the western rooms 
through the North Portico, but if he did, his form of expression is condensed to the point 
of obscurity and even eccentricity. Moreover, on this theory Pausanias leaves the Erech- 
theum after the mention of the mark of the trident, and passes to the temple of Athena, i. e., 
the rebuilt Hecatompedon. If it were clearly proved that this temple had ever been restored, 
such an interpretation of his route, although not free from difficulties, would have much to 
commend it and might perhaps be considered acceptable.’ We have seen, however, that 
the other evidence for the survival of the Hecatompedon after 406 B.c. is very far from 
conclusive, and that, although certainty may not at present be attainable, the balance of 
probability is decidedly in favor of identifying the temple of Athena with the Erechtheum. 

1 Ch. I, pp. 132 ff. Any opening in this wall would have led to the terrace of the Cecropium, not to the Pandroseum. 

2 It is unnecessary to cite here the numerous early theories of the division of the temple and the localization of its 
contents based on the belief in the eastern entrance of Pausanias. The interior was then so encumbered with débris 
that these reconstructions were largely hypothetical and consequently possess little practical value for the correct 
interpretation either of Pausanias or of the Erechtheum, although often of decided interest and importance for the 
history of archaeological criticism. 


3 See the full discussion by Dérpfeld, Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 28-39. He interprets the words durdobv 
olxnua as referring to the East Cella and the western rooms. 


490 THE ERECHTHEUM 


If this be true, the choice of the eastern entrance for the starting point involves serious 
difficulties, for since the “‘sea”’ cannot have been under the East Cella, it seems necessary 
to believe that Pausanias, after visiting the eastern division of the temple, passed by the 
North Portico into the Prostomiaion, where he described the “sea” and in connection with 
it the marks of the trident, and finally came to the cella of Athena in the central chamber, 
— or chambers, if there were still two after the Roman restoration. This would be a con- 
ceivable route, provided there were other grounds for believing that the cella of Athena 
was in the centre of the building; it is not sufficiently plausible to stand alone. 

To sum up: it may fairly be said that, if the Hecatompedon were still standing, it 
would be possible to suppose that Pausanias began his description of the Erechtheum 
with the East Cella. If, however, the Hecatompedon had disappeared, this supposition 
involves such difficulties in route and such discrepancies with the conclusions drawn from 
the building, that it is necessary to consider whether a better result cannot be obtained 
if the North Portico be considered the point of entrance. 

In that case it seems easy and natural to identify the altar of Zeus Hypatos with the 
altar of the Thyechoiis of the inscriptions. This identification is greatly strengthened by 
secondary evidence, which harmonizes perfectly with this supposition, though not perhaps 
conclusive in itself.1 In the first place the offerings to Zeus Hypatos were wéuuara, which 
the Athenians called zéAavor. Now the zédavos was a mixture of meal, honey, and oil,” and 
was, on some occasions at any rate, sufficiently liquid to be poured, so that the officiating 
priest might properly be described as “‘the pourer of the offering” (6unxéos).° It is also 
significant that while neither Zeus Hypatos nor his priest appears in Attic inscriptions, the 
Thyechoiis was seated in the central division of the theatre on the left of the priest of Diony- 
sus, from whom he was separated only by the priest of Zeus Polieus,*— an appropriate 
place if he was associated with what was traditionally the oldest cult of Zeus in Athens. If, 
however, the altar in the North Portico was dedicated to Zeus, and has been correctly 
placed above, or in close proximity to, the opening in the pavement, certain conclusions 
as to the nature of the crypt and of the openings above it logically follow. It is hard to be- 
lieve that the altar of Zeus stood above the token of the power of Poseidon, or that, if the 
marks of the trident were visible only through the pavement in the portico, and not from 
the interior beside the sacred ‘‘sea,’’ Pausanias would have omitted to notice this fact. 
There is absolutely no reason for placing these marks in the North Portico except the 
presence of the decidedly irregular groups of holes in the rock, for the small entrance into 
the crypt beneath the north wall does not prove a connection with the ‘‘sea,” even if the 


1 Cf. Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 96, 97, to whom this discussion owes much. 

? Cf. Timaeus, Lexicon vocum Platonicarum, s.v. rédavor réupara &k rarrédns Kat ehatov kal pedrtos wemounuéva. Tpos 
6uoiav. Plato, Laws, VI, p. 782 c: Obuard re odk Hy rots Beotor {Ga, wéAavor 5é Kal wédTL Kaprol dedebpevor, kal Torabra adAda 
ayva Oipara. 

3 Aeschylus, Choephori, 92: xéovea révde réNavov & TbuBw rarpds. 

4 7.G., III, 244. There is a word erased above 6unxéov. 


HISTORY 49] 


latter were in the centre of the building, much less if it were in the west room with the foun- 
dations of the western cross-wall between it and the little doorway. The most probable 
purpose of the doorway seems to be to afford access to the crypt from the interior of the 
building in order to remove the zéAavo., if these were thrown into the opening above.! 
That the marks in the rock, whether attributed to Zeus or Poseidon, were venerated long 
before the building of the present Erechtheum hardly admits of doubt, and it is easy to 
believe that the present arrangement merely replaces an earlier one of the same general 
character. The age of the crypt, however, furnishes no ground for associating it with 
Poseidon rather than Zeus, since the institution of the cult of Zeus Hypatos was attributed 
to Cecrops, as we have seen, and it was in his reign that Athenian tradition placed the con- 
test of the gods for the land.? Moreover, the fact that even in early times the crypt was 
presumably outside the enclosure within which were the olive and the ‘‘sea” (p. 426) 
speaks strongly against any original connection with the latter. It seems necessary, there- 
fore, to give up the theory that the marks in the rock within the crypt are the cxfua rpraivns 
of Pausanias, and to see in them the marks — real or traditional — of the fall of a thunder- 
bolt, which would render the spot sacred, an 7Avovov or évndvovov, and inaccessible (a4Garor), 
but yet one to be kept open to the sky by means of the aperture above in the ceiling and 
the roof (p. 89).8 

If we follow Pausanias into the interior of the building, the course of his narrative would 
at first sight seem to place the three altars and the paintings in the west room, the Prosto- 
miaion and the ‘‘sea”’ with the oxjua rpraivns in the interior. Such a distribution, however, 
conflicts with the evidence furnished by the slope of the rock and by the building itself 
(p. 170), nor is it a necessary consequence of the statements of Pausanias. His narrative is 
by no means always arranged in strict topographical order,* and his fondness for grouping 
effectively and contrasting similar objects is quite sufficient to account for the mention of 
the three altars within following immediately on the mention of the altar outside,’ even 
_ though the former were in the central room or rooms. The reference to the dimdoby otxnua 
may then indicate a return to the west room with the rpooréuov, but more probably em- 


phasizes the crypt in which was the “‘sea”’ with the mark of the trident in the rock beside 


1 Tt is perhaps allowable to see in the crypt beneath the North Portico and in its probable extension along the 
inside of the north wall the reputed dwelling-place of the sacred serpent (oixovpés d¢is; cf. J.-M., p. 70, note 8), — 
if indeed the serpent had any real existence, and was not a mere hypostasis of the chthonic divinity, Erechtheus 
(Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 61-93). The serpent was offered honey cakes, which must have been very similar to the 
TéNavot. 

2 Apollodorus, III, 178. 

8 For this well-known usage and for the citation of ancient authorities, see Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitt., XXVIII, 1903, 
pp. 466-468; Petersen, Burgtempel, pp. 61-93; Usener, ‘Keraunos,’ Rh. Mus., LX, pp. 8-11, 23 (= Kleine Schriften, IV, 
pp. 477-480, 490); Elderkin, Problems in Periclean Buildings, pp. 32-36, with a strong statement of the reasons 
for seeing here the marks of a thunderbolt. The fragmentary inscription from the Acropolis, &Barov Aids KaratBarov 
(I. G., II, 1659 b), does not seem to be connected with the Erechtheum. 

4 Robert, Pausanias als Schriftsteller, pp. 71 ff., 113-114. 

5 Furtwingler, Meisterwerke, p. 198; Masterpieces, p. 435. 


492 THE ERECHTHEUM 


it! This certainly seems the natural place for such a mark, since it was an additional proof 
of the divine agency which had produced the “‘sea.”” Both ‘‘sea”’? and mark have naturally 
disappeared in the construction of the great cistern. 

Having thus described first the most striking objects in the Erechtheum, Pausanias 
turns to the east room, the cella of Athena, still containing the dpxatov ayadua for which it 
had been built, and also a number of old and prized dedications. Since the course of his 
narrative now takes him toward the Propylaea, he naturally notices next, but in a very 
brief and perfunctory manner, the Pandroseum on the west with its sacred olive and shrine 
of Pandrosus, and then tells with evident satisfaction the story of the curious mission to 
the shrine of Aphrodite in the Gardens which was entrusted to the Arrephori on the last 
night of their year spent on the Acropolis in the service of Athena. 


Ill. Tue EREcHTHEUM AS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH 


Durinc the fifteen centuries which elapsed between the visits of Pausanias and of Spon, 
the scanty records of the Acropolis contain no explicit mention of the Erechtheum, nor 
indeed any direct reference thereto, unless one be found in the obscure passage of the Vienna 
Anonymous discussed below. The history of the changes which transformed the temple of 
the second century into the Turkish house of the seventeenth is preserved only in the build- 
ing itself, and must be gleaned from the existing ruins, with the aid of such meagre informa- 
tion in regard to earlier conditions as may be derived from descriptions and drawings made 
before the later additions had been so largely removed, but also unfortunately before there 
was sufficient interest in these additions to secure any detailed and accurate record of their 
appearance. 

In fact, before the partial clearing of the Erechtheum, which began in 1837, references 
to the actual condition of the interior or to its vicissitudes are very rare and very vague.” 
This silence is due in great part to the natural concentration of attention upon the beauty 
and novelty of the Greek building and upon the numerous problems which it presented, 
while the prevailing indifference to Byzantine art and history made it easy to neglect later 
elements as devoid of significance. Moreover, the interior was then so encumbered with 
the fallen walls and other débris,? that any thorough examination was impossible without 

1 The order of narration thus resembles that followed in the account of the Parthenon, where the statue of Iphi- 
crates near the entrance is only mentioned after the description of the Parthenos (I, 24, 7). 

2 For example, apart from allusions to the Turkish house of Spon’s time, later phases in the history of the build- 
ing are passed over in silence by Le Roy, Stuart, Chandler, Leake, Joseph Woods, Wolfe (in his manuscript notes), 
Wilkins (Atheniensia), and H. W. Williams. Inwood is practically alone in referring existing remains to post-Hellenic 
alterations. He regarded the western cross-wall as an addition (Ed. min., p. 4, text to pl. II) and noted its obviously 
late door-posts (p. 6, text to pl. XIV) but he does not mention the Christians, and in his larger edition (Bk. XXIV, 
p- 112) speaks of “the Roman division walls . . . in the interior.”’ Rangabé (Ath. Mitt., VII, 1882, p. 263) con- 
sidered that the western cross-wall was constructed for a church. On the date of this wall, see Ch. I, pp. 151-156. 

3 Stuart and Revett, II, p. 18, “The pavements are so encumbered with large blocks of marble and variety of 


rubbish, as to render the inside almost impassable, and a more particular disquisition there fruitless.’’ So also Le 
Roy, Ruines, p. 11, mentions ‘‘monceaux de marbre qui couvrent le pavé du Temple.” 


HISTORY 493 


extensive clearing operations, for which the visiting architects had neither time nor money, 
even if permission could have been obtained from the Turkish governor. It was of course 
obvious that Christians ! and Turks had not left the temple untouched, and, even without 
exact knowledge of the nature and extent of their changes, it was reasonable to suppose that, 
like the Parthenon and the Theseum, the Erechtheum had been preserved through its trans- 
formation into a church.? While this seems to have been the prevalent opinion, it was 
apparently accepted without argument, and no special proofs were offered in its support, 
until Tétaz published the results of his careful study of the building after the repairs and 
excavations of 1837-46. The facts there presented were deemed conclusive, and since 
that time there has been such general agreement on this point,‘ that the existence of a 
church has been taken for granted in the previous description, and many of the marks left 
by its construction have been already mentioned. It remains to justify this assumption 
by presenting the evidence on which it rests. 

The exterior of the building, except at the east end, shows few traces of deliberate al- 
teration, and these, with the exception of the windows,’ are of no apparent significance 
for the church, so that information must be sought from the interior. Here, however, the 
evidence even to-day is fairly abundant and clear. At the east front the original wall has 
been destroyed and the foundations removed in the centre, so as to form a niche ® from 
5.78 m. to 4.37 m. wide and 1.93 m. deep (Puate II). Practically all traces of later con- 
struction in this niche have now disappeared, but in 1848 Tétaz found a bit of curved 
brick wall at the north side, which indicated plainly that the interior had the form of an 


1 The earliest mention of the work of the Christians seems to be in a letter of Fauvel to Choiseul-Gouffier (App. 
A, XIV, 5). In February, 1787, Fauvel had reported the discovery of the pavement at a considerable depth, and in 
the following year (October 12, 1788) he wrote that this pavement was not the original one, but due to the Christians, 
who had disfigured the building in every way. 

2 This view is first stated by Prokesch von Osten (II, p. 648) in a letter dated August 25, 1825, “Die jetzt ver- 
mauerte Thiire in der Westfronte ist neuer, da auch dieser Tempel in eine Kirche verwandelt gewesen war.” In 
1835 Pittakis (L’ancienne Athénes, p. 396) writes: ‘Ce temple a servi d’Eglise en 1220.” This date would be impor- 
tant, if it rested on any ascertainable contemporary authority; as, however, Pittakis cites no evidence for his statement, 
its accuracy must remain more than doubtful. Other early references are Von Quast (1839), Erechtheion, p. 82, “In 
eine christliche Kirche verwandelt blieb der Bau wohl im Wesentlichen unverindert” (!); and Rangabé, f. Arch., 
II, 1845, p. 321, who argues that the vault in the North Portico was built after the Turkish conquest, “car, avant cette 
époque, le temple d’Erechthée avait servi d’église.”” In 1838, the Athenian paper Zwrqp published a report of recent, 
discoveries in the Erechtheum and noted that the divisions of the church were now clear. See Allgemeine Zeitung 
(Augsburg), 16 Juli, 1838, Beilage, where, however, the obscurity and lack of detail in the report are severely censured. 

* R. Arch., VII, 1851, pp. 1 ff., 81 ff., pls. 158, 159. See also for the new and old evidence proving the transfor- 
mation into a church, Raoul-Rochette, Journal des Savants, 1850, p. 656; 1851, p. 32. 

4 Semper, Kleine Schriften, p. 165 (originally written in 1852) seems the only doubter. His scepticism was 
based on the supposed lack of Byzantine ornament and of traces of paintings on the walls. Compare, however, Ran- 
gabé, Ath. Mitt., VII, 1882, p. 263, ‘Dass das Gebiude diese neue Bestimmung (i.e., a church) erhielt, dafiir sind un- 
triigliche Beweise die Spuren der Heiligenbilder, die wie im Parthenon, so hier auf den Wanden noch zu sehen sind.” 
All traces of these Christian paintings have now vanished, and the silence of other writers indicates that they were 
never very distinct. 

§ On these windows see pp. 513 ff. 

6 The rectangular character of the niche at present is in great part due to the modern wall across its east end 
(Puate IX). In Report Gr. Comm., § 47, it is stated that the stones of the original foundation had been roughly cut 
into a curve. 


494 THE ERECHTHEUM 


apse about 4m. in diameter (PLATE XXXI).' Since the marble pavement of the East Por- 
tico has been cut away in an irregular curve (Fig. 30), it seems probable that the exterior 
above the pavement, where alone it was visible, was also rounded. 

From the extremities of the apse two longitudinal walls extend to the foundations of 
the west cross-wall, into which, however, they are not bonded (PLaTte XXXI; Fig. 207). 
They were built of material taken from the Erechtheum, chiefly poros blocks from the 
eastern foundations, but fragments of frieze, cornice, and other mouldings were used to fill 
gaps, while the upper course of the north wall was composed in great part, if not wholly, 
of architrave blocks. The early drawings,? the Report of the Greek Commission, § 32, 
and the traces still remaining on the marble sill of the west cross-wall show that three open- 
ings in this wall gave access to the three divisions formed by these two longitudinal walls. 
About 3 m. from the inner face of the eastern foundation another marble sill, slightly raised 
above the pavement and also bearing clear traces of three openings, crosses the building 
from north to south (PLATE XXXI; Fig. 207). 

Such a division of the interior obviously corresponds exactly with the typical plan of the 
early Byzantine basilica. From the ancient Prostomiaion, now transformed into the 
narthex, the usual three doors led into the nave and aisles. At the end of the nave was 
the iconostasis, a carved fragment of which still remains, with the tepa rin in the centre, 
and beyond, doubtless, the altar and, in the apse, the bishop’s throne flanked by the seats 
for the clergy. At the ends of the aisles doors gave access to the customary Prothesis (north) 
and Diaconicum (south), and longitudinal walls to the east of the screen separated these 
rooms from the altar. Further evidence for the sacred character of the building, if it were 
needed, is found in the Christian cemetery, which occupied the old Pandroseum, and in the 
graves, which filled the south aisle and even extended into the sanctuary.’ 

This church, however, has been studied hitherto chiefly to determine the effect which its 
construction produced on the original building, and with little attention to its own form.4 
It is true that the evidence is scanty and on many points entirely lacking, yet when all the 
data are collected, including those furnished by other churches of similar type, it seems 
possible to reconstruct the probable appearance of the interior. 

With this object in view we may now proceed to a more detailed examination of the 
Christian alterations. At the west end the outer doors already existing furnished ample 


1 R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158, III; also in D’Ooge, Acropolis, p. 202, fig. 92. The original drawing, which dif- 
fers in some minor details from the engraving, is now in the library of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, and is 
reproduced in D’Espouy, Mon. ant., pl. XXXVI, a. 

* For example, Inwood, pl. XIV; Penrose, Ath. Arch., pl. XLI, which is based on drawings made by T. Hayter 
Lewis in 1842; Tétaz, l. c. 

* Report Gr. Comm., § 35; Bétticher, Untersuchungen, p. 211; Kawerau, Berl. phil. W., VIII, 1888, col. 155 (= 
Deutsche Bauzeitung, XXII, 1888, pp. 2-5). 

* Only Michaelis (J.-M., Acta Arcis, p. 23, No. 251) has attempted a plan, and he was not familiar with all the 
evidence. Clearly wrong, for example, are the omission of the small doors and the adjacent rooms at the east end of 
the aisles and the closing of the great door from the North Portico. 


Figure 207. INTERIOR OF THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE EAST, SHOWING THE WALLS OF THE CHURCH 
(JANUARY, 1922) 


[ 495 ] 


496 THE ERECHTHEUM 


means of access to the narthex. All the thresholds show late cuttings for sockets, the door 
in the west wall has been slightly enlarged, and the great North Door lined with a lintel and 
jambs, which are shown by their mouldings to belong to Christian times.’ We are, there- 
fore, warranted in believing that these doors continued in use for some time, especially as 
the changes need not have been contemporary with the first transformation. It may, how- 
ever, be doubted whether the same reasons which have already been urged (p. 111) against 
the use of the Porch of the Maidens as a main entrance to the temple, are not equally 
valid in the case of the church. The step could indeed have been lowered by placing a stone 
in front of it, though on the sides of the Parthenon the more permanent method of cutting 
the new step in the original high block was preferred, but in any case the reeding on the 
base moulding would hardly be so well-preserved after several centuries of passing feet. 
Moreover, the fact that the opening in the podium was not detected by Stuart and Revett 
or the other early students of the Erechtheum ” points to a somewhat neat and careful 
closing, since it is unlikely that mere rubble filling would have been thought ancient. It 
is, therefore, quite possible that the podium was walled up and the Porch converted into an 
adjunct of the church — perhaps the baptistery — accessible only through the narthex. 

The changes in the Prostomiaion itself need have amounted to little more than the re- 
moval of the puteal or other mark of the ‘‘sea”’ as the bench along the west wall would have 
been only a convenience in the vestibule of the church. The date of the cistern, which once 
filled the space below the floor, is, as has been said (p. 169), uncertain, but the vault which 
covered it rose above the sill of the North Door,’ and cannot have been constructed while 
this entrance was in use. In its final form, theretore, the cistern is probably later than the 
church. | 

To prepare the entrance to the church proper the Roman cross-wall was entirely de- 
stroyed above the marble threshold, and in turn modern clearing and restoration have re- 
moved most of the Christian construction. All that now remains is shown in Figures 97 and 
208. In each aisle wall the western block of the upper course extends across the sill and thus 
bonds these walls into the new cross-wall. Next to each of these blocks, toward the centre, 
is a narrow course of poros, and next to this again another poros block, ca. 1.30 m. high, 
placed on end, leaving a space of about 2.76 m. vacant between the uprights. Fortunately 
we are not obliged to rely for the reconstruction solely on what is now visible. When In- 
wood visited Athens in 1819 the central space still contained the jambs of the door. His 
drawings (pl. XIV, 4, 5, 6) represent the greater part of the threshold as covered with 
earth, which at the sides rose to a considerable height. One jamb, or pilaster, however, 
was cleared to the bottom. It was placed on a step or sill 7.1 inches high, but its own height 

' For these alterations, see Ch. I, pp. 59 (West Door); 103, 104 (North Door); 119 (Porch of the Maidens). 

2 Ch. I, p. 110, and note 7. 

* Report Gr. Comm., § 33, and pl. IV. It was the height of this vault, combined with an unshakable belief in its 


antiquity, that enabled Forchhammer to maintain as late as 1887 that the great door had been from the beginning 
walled up. Cf. his letter in Allgemeine Zeitung (Munich), 18 Okt., 1887, No. 289, cols. 4257-58. 


HISTORY 497 


is not figured.!' The lower part of the other jamb, which was the higher, was buried, but 
the visible portion had a height of 4 feet, 10 inches (ca. 1.50 m.).2. These jambs were formed 
from old architrave blocks set on end and so carelessly adapted to their new use that they 
apparently overhung the step beneath on both sides. Twenty years later they had fallen, 
but seem to have remained where they fell * until the later clearing. They show two 
fasciae of unequal height surmounted by an egg moulding, though the latter has been in 
great part broken away. The lower side has a slightly sunk convex moulding along its 
length, showing that this side was visible and hence that the blocks originally formed part 
of the architrave of a colonnade.* One fragment formerly lay on the north aisle wall (Fig. 
101) near the middle, the others near the south end of the west cross-wall (Figs. 99, 208). 
The three fragments now (1925) lie together on the west end of the south aisle wall. 
When the Erechtheum was partially cleared about 1837, the openings leading into the 
aisles were disclosed.’ The pilasters, which lined the openings, had disappeared, except the 
lower part of the southern one in the north doorway, which, as the Report of the Greek 
Commission, § 32, and Skene’s drawing (Fig. 227) show, was still in place. It is apparently 
the same block that now stands on the threshold against the north wall (Fig. 208). The 
four bases of the pilasters, however, were undisturbed ° and can still be identified (Fig. 209), 
although three of them have been removed to the Epigraphical Museum, since they were 
carved from inscribed stelae. The southern base of the southern doorway has on its back 
(not its bottom) J.G., I, 31, B (1?, 45), the amendment of Phantocles to the decree estab- 
lishing the colony of Brea; the northern on its bottom the longer fragment, 31, A, from 
this decree. On the bottom of the southern base of the northern doorway is /.G., II, 2, 963.7 


1 Inwood speaks of .these jambs as placed on a “‘step” or a “cill” (text to pl. XIV), but this “step” is very 
nearly two inches lower than the marble sill of the west cross-wall, and about the same height as the bases from 
the entrances to the isles (Fig. 209), so that it is possible that it too was a base. 

2 That this is only the visible height seems certain, since the shorter of the two large blocks is 1.75 m. long. 

3 See Skene’s drawing (Fig. 227), made in 1841, where the long fallen block seems to be one of these jambs. 

4 The longer of the jambs now measures ca. 2.75 m. in length, the shorter, which has been broken in two, ca. 1.75m. 
The fasciae are respectively 0.11 m. and 0.16 m. high; the soffit with the convex moulding is 0.54 m. wide. East of 
the Erechtheum are four pieces from a similar architrave with fasciae 0.14 m. and 0.18 m. high and a soffit 0.485 m. 
wide. These four pieces have a total length of 4.30 m. and seem to have formed originally a single block. 

5 Traces on the marble sill show that these openings were at some time closed by doors (PLaTEs II, XXX1), 
but the fact that the mouldings on the bases continue through the openings suggests that originally curtains may 
have been employed. 

6 Tétaz (1848) shows the four on his plan, R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158. T. Hayter Lewis (1842), as reported in 
Penrose’s plan (Ath. Arch., pl. XLI), omits the northern base in the southern doorway, but this is clearly an oversight, 
for Report Gr. Comm.., § 32, explicitly declares that this base was seen in 1851. Lewis himself, in discussing Fergusson’s 
paper on the Erechtheum (Sessional Papers, R. I. B. A., 1876, p. 153), described the wall as he had seen it thirty-five 
years before as having “‘three openings (one in the centre and one on each end), not doorways, for they had the usual 
bases of antae, showing that they were pilasters without windows or door.’ It is curious that neither Fergusson, nor 
the participants in the discussion, nor even Penrose in the second edition of his Principles of Athenian Architecture (1888) 
knew anything about the inscriptions which proved the late date of these bases, although they had been published in 
1853. All assumed that these four bases were in situ and had belonged to the original Greek structure. 

7 On the discovery of the Brea inscriptions see Pittakis, E¢.’Apx., Nos. 1102, 1103 bis (pp. 640, 641), 1616, p. 687; 
Rangabé, Ant. hellén., II, Nos. 770h, 785b, pl. XIV; Report Gr. Comm., § 32, and pls. VII, VIII (Greek edition), pp. 51, 
53 (German edition). Pittakis claimed to have discovered B in 1833 and A on July 24, 1847, but concealed both 


(S161 ‘HOUVW) HounHO 
GHL JO TIVM LSAM YANNI JO SNIVWAY DNIMOHS ‘LSVEHLOOS AHL WOU WOKHLHOGNE AHL dO GNA ISAM °806 THIS] 


[ 498 ] 


HISTORY 499 


The northern base of this doorway now (1925) lies north of the North Portico. It was not 
inscribed. The bases are rectangular, with an Attic Ionic moulding, two tori separated 
by a scotia, on three sides and are approximately of the same size, though with no precise 
agreement in dimensions.’ In spite of the use of old inscriptions the workmanship is fair, 
and it seems probable that like the jambs of the central door these bases were transferred 
from another building. 

The remains indicate that the Christian cross-wall was of poros, and if the conjectural 
restoration of low roofs over the aisles and narthex (PLATE XXXII) is correct, it was 
probably carried across the full width of the building to the height required by the roof of 
the narthex; above that point it would naturally be given the width of the nave. 

In the interior nothing now remains from entrance to iconostasis except the walls 
between nave and aisles and a small bit of pavement in the southeast corner of the nave. 
As we have seen, the pavement of the nave was first discovered by Fauvel in 1787, and its 
depth below the bases of the eastern columns determined as 8 feet, 6 inches (French).? It 
seems to have been fully cleared in 1837 and the following years (Fig. 227), and to have re- 
mained untouched * until the investigations of the Greek Commission in 1852, when a 
trench was dug to the rock and it was found that the pavement consisted of thin slabs of 
marble set in a bed of mortar, resting on a filling of rea earth and mortar (Report Gr. Comm., 
§ 35). At the same time the existing breach in the north aisle wall (Figs. 93, 101) was 
opened in a search for the foundations of the Greek east cross-wall. The trenches were 
refilled, but the pavement was not replaced, for in 1862 Bétticher found it preserved only 
at the eastern end.4 He re-excavated the nave to the native rock, leaving merely a bit of 
pavement in place in the southeast corner (Figs. 210, 215). 

The aisles were apparently never paved, but simply filled with earth. The south aisle 
was excavated by Pittakis in 1837 and found to contain Christian graves (Report Gr. Comm., 
§ 35),5 and about the same time, in the north aisle, the passage to the crypt under the 


until the investigations of the Greek Commission in 1852. On the third inscription, see Pittakis, "Ed. ’Apx., No. 1400; 
Rangabé, op. cit., No. 1298. 


1 The dimensions are: I, 31, B 1, 31,4 II, 963  Uninscribed 
IRMMETE SECC IIR 50 0 eee ab ec o8el¥d sy Fee a eh we wes ca.0.70 m. _—ca.0.68 m. 0.705m. 0.71 m. 
OPES ot 2 eS nn re 0.345 0.31 ca. 0.317 0.35 
emerorlower torus on front... <.. 2.2.2. u ese nee weet 0.745 0.725 0.735 0.732 
Depth from front of lower torus to smooth back .......... 0.36 0.335 0.33 0.36 
emer Upper torus on front... .......6 06. 600s. eee 0.66 0.66 0.665 0.67 
Pens ontop bed = length of scotia-.....:. 26.6.0 beeen ees 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.633 


2 Page 493, note 1. It is doubtful whether Fauvel’s pavement was in the nave or in the sanctuary. He believed 
the east end of the building contained the Erechtheis, and was planning a search for the well (App. A, XIV, 4), which 
was later, in his absence, undertaken unsuccessfully by the Turks (tbid., 5). The latter certainly did not dig in the 
nave, but may well have worked farther east. 

3 Rangabé to Thiersch, Erechtheum, I, p. 182: ‘Das Marmorpflaster ist noch ganz erhalten in dem mittleren 
Theile des grésseren Tempels, fehlt aber ganz auf den beiden Seiten, die tiefer als der Boden ausgegraben sind.” 

* Untersuchungen, p. 193. 

5 During the excavations of the American School in 1914 a Christian grave was discovered at the eastern end 
of the south aisle in front of the entrance to the Diaconicum. 


ROC. 1 ea 


10cm. 


Ficure 209. 


ss MEASUREMENTS» “TAKEN eee 


k——_ /Ocm. 


ISOMETRIC VIEW 4 
LSLb s 
(BOTTOM) i 


TOP &BOTTOM ROUGH TOOLED pe 
BACK INSCRIBED see 
CORNERS BADLY BROKEN ce 


Sl = 
gn hee { $ 
1,963 s 
L3LA [ (BOTTOM) i 
(BOTTOM) 5 iw 
a TOP ROUGH TOOLED 
TOP ROUGH TOSCGLED BACK VERY ROUGH 
BACK VERY ROUGH BOTTOM INSCRIBED : 


BOTTOM INSCRIBED CORNERS SOMEWHAT See. 


+ oe as 
. 


| 
\ 


rine? 


ane eae” 


BASES FROM THE INNER WEST WALL OF THE CHURCH. ABOVE: THE UNINSCRIBED 


BASE ON THE ACROPOLIS (1925). BELOW: THE INSCRIBED BASES IN THE EPIGRAPHICAL MUSEUM 


[ 500 | 


wie eer 


HISTORY 501 


North Portico was discovered, though this part of the temple was first thoroughly examined 
by Tétaz ten years later. Both aisles must have been fully cleared by the Greek Commis- 
sion, as is implied, though not directly stated, in their Report, §§ 44, 45, 46,1 since in 1862 
Bétticher found them free from earth. This combination of a marble pavement in the 


Figure 210. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NAVE AND DIACONICUM, FROM 
NORTH. (JANUARY 26, 1914) 


nave and beaten earth in the aisles occurs also in the Byzantine church at Olympia,’ 
which, as we shall see, furnishes other interesting analogies to conditions in the Erechtheum. 
Further light is thrown upon the construction of the interior by certain peculiarities, 
hitherto neglected, in the aisle walls. The south wall, which is wholly of poros, has ap- 
1 Nothing in the Report justifies Thiersch’s statement (Hpikrisis, p. 28 (860), § 4 = Sendschreiben an Béckh, 


p. 7) that these graves were carefully constructed in the aisles at the time the church was built, so as to be ready for 
future use. No graves seem to have been found in the north aisle. 2 Olympia, I, p. 95. 


502 THE ERECHTHEUM 


parently remained undisturbed during the various explorations of the interior. It rises 
about 0.40 m. above the pavement of the nave.! In the upper surface are eight roughly cut 
dowel holes with pour channels, grouped in four pairs at somewhat irregular intervals, and 
between 0.17 and 0.24 m. from the south edge of the wall (PLarrs II, XX XI). The north 
wall, in addition to the breach already mentioned, has lost the greater part of the upper 
course (Fig. 101),2 which is preserved only where the stones of the eastern * and western 
cross-walls of the church project into the aisle wall, and at the western end where there is 
a fragment of marble epistyle with a dowel cutting, like those just mentioned, 0.205 m. from 
its north edge (PLares II, XXXI; Fig. 208). The presence of similar dowel cuttings in 
two other marble epistyle blocks identifies them as also part of the missing course. Further 
examination shows that three normal epistyle blocks, eight Attic feet (ca. 2.62 m.) long, 
will just fill the existing gap. If the large block, now in the apse (p. 52), is placed at the 
east end in contact with the fragment from the eastern architrave in the iconostasis, its 
dowels correspond with the first pair in the southern wall (PLATE XXXI). The next block 
would have had three dowels, two near the east end and one at the west. If the fragments 
northwest of the Erechtheum (p. 52) belong to this block, the single dowel in the preserved 
portion corresponds exactly with the eastern dowel of the third southern pair (PLATE 
XXXI). The third block with one dowel near each end has not yet been identified, if in- 
deed it still exists. 

According to all analogy such interior aisle walls must have supported piers or, more 
probably, columns. These columns may perhaps be identified. Within the Erechtheum 
there have been found two types of column which may naturally be associated with the 
church. One group is represented by a few fragments of variegated marble (pavonazzetto) 
about 0.27 to 0.29 m. in diameter. The other group is of dark green marble (verde antico) 
and contains one complete column and many fragments. The diameter varies slightly in 


1 The height above the present fragment of paving, none of which is close to the wall, is ca. 0.39 m. The mortar 
bed of the pavement at the wall is 0.42 m. below the top of the wall. 

2 This course had disappeared before 1848. Cf. Rangabé to Thiersch, Erechtheum, I, p. 175: “Von diesen Pfeilern 
(i.e., the poros blocks east of the iconostasis) an laufen zwei Mauern, 3 Schritte von den resp. Mauern (the exterior 
walls) entfernt, denselben parallel. Die siidliche erhebt sich ein paar Fuss iiber dem Boden und reicht bis an die Schei- 
dungswand der Querhalle. Es ist schwer zu sagen wie weit die nérdliche reichte. Sie liegt meistens tiefer als die 
Oberfliche des Pflasters, und ist nicht iiberall sichtbar.”” Rangabé considered these walls ancient. 

3 The block at the intersection of the eastern cross-wall and the north aisle wall is a fragment of an architrave 
block from the east wall of the Erechtheum (p. 45). 

* These green marble columns early attracted the attention of the indefatigable collector Fauvel, who secured at 
different times one complete column and five fragments for his employer, the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier. Three 
small fragments formed part of the shipment on the Arabe, which was captured by the English and her cargo dis- 
persed (App. A, XIV, 11). The complete column and two large fragments were sold with the rest of Choiseul’s col- 
lection in 1818, and have since disappeared. According to the sale catalogue by J. J. Dubois, the complete column 
(No. 463) was 2.94 m. high, and 0.33 m. in diameter; the larger fragment (No. 464), which was broken at the top, 
measured 2.17 m. and 0.37 m., and the smaller (No. 465), 1.35 m. and 0.36 m. 

Only one other visitor to Athens seems to have thought the broken green marble worth collecting. E. D. Clarke 
in 1801 bought from the Disdar ‘‘the broken shaft of a verd-aniique pillar of uncommon beauty” (App. A, XY). 
It was presented with many other antiquities to Cambridge University, but apparently was not transferred with the 
rest of the collection from the University Library to the Fitzwilliam Museum, and cannot now be identified. Accord- 


HISTORY 503 


the different specimens, but is generally about 0.36 to 0.38 m. There were certainly more 
than two of these green columns, and this fact, coupled with their greater size, justifies the 
belief that they separated the nave and aisles, and that the smaller columns stood on either 
side of the central door in the iconostasis. There is no reason to suppose that any of these 
columns was made expressly for the church. Like the bases on the inner west wall, they 
were probably brought from an older building. At the same time there is no ground for 
assuming, with some of the early travellers! that they originally formed part of the deco- 
ration of the Erechtheum itself, although there is, of course, nothing impossible in the use 
of colored marbles in the reconstructed Roman interior. 

Whether these columns stood on bases or rested directly on the wall cannot now be 
determined with certainty. In 1913 an Ionic base, similar in profile to those which stood 
on the interior west wall, lay in the north end of the apse. Its rectangular plinth measures 
about 0.49 m. by 0.48 m.; the circular top (excluding the torus) is 0.377 m. in diameter, so 
that its size is not against its use with the columns. There are other similar bases scat- 
tered over the Acropolis, and also a number of small and late Ionic capitals, but there is 
no evidence that any one of these was actually found in the Erechtheum,? so that any con- 
nection with the church must remain purely conjectural. 

At the west end of each aisle the blocks of the cross-wall of the church project into 


ing to Kinnard (Stuart and Revett?, II, p. 71, note b), its diameter was 1 ft., 6 in. (ca. 0.45 m.). If this is correct, 
it was considerably larger than the other known fragments. 

At least six fragments still remain in Athens. At the west end of the nave in the Erechtheum are three fragments, 
ca. 1.20 m., 0.95 m., and 0.84 m. long, and ca. 0.38 m. in diameter; one has an astragal at one end, another a congé 
and fillet. In the south aisle is another fragment, also with an astragal at the upper end (Fig. 215). It is 1.07 m. long, 
0.38 m, in diameter at the lower (broken) end, and 0.37 m. across the astragal. In this end is a small broken con- 
ical hole, probably cut for the lathe, as it is too small for a dowel. Two more fragments lie outside the west wall of the 
Belvedere. One, 1.03 m. long and ca. 0.35 m. in diameter, is apparently from the bottom of a column, though it lacks 
the moulding. It has in its lower end a circular dowel hole, 0.04 m. in diameter, and 0.45-0.48 m. above the base a 
square cutting, which may have held the horizontal end of a clamp in the form of a half hook, the bent end being 
fixed in the top of an adjacent slab. About 60° on one side of this hole is a vertical series of six narrow cuttings 
ca, 0.01 m. wide and 0.035 m. long, at an average distance of 0.15 m. apart; the bottom of the lowest cutting is 0.015 m. 
above the base of the fragment and the top of the uppermost 0.04 m. from the broken end. It seems probable that 
these holes served to secure a metal grille. Unfortunately it does not seem possible to fix the position of this column 
in the church. The second fragment is 0.45 m. long and 0.31 m. in diameter. One end has an astragal moulding and 
in the centre a circular dowel hole, 0.045 m. in diameter and 0.05 m. deep, with a pour channel. A third fragment of 
verde antico close by, 0.45 m. long, is only 0.19 m. in diameter, so that it evidently did not come from the same series 
of columns as the other fragments. There is no reason for connecting it with the Erechtheum. 

1 Thus Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 350: “The interior of the cella of the Erechtheum was anciently richly ornamented; 
a column of verde antico and some fragments of the elegant frieze which I saw lying amongst the ruins, have since been 
removed and brought to this country.’”’ Inwood, text to pl. II (the restored plan): “The steps down and the colonnade 
forming the division of the two cells, are entirely imaginary, with the exception of a column of green or Lacedaemonian 
marble found by Dr. Clarke within the temple, which was considered by Mr. Fauvel to have belonged there.” 
G. Semper, Vorldufige Bemerkungen tiber bemalte Architektur und Plastik bei den Alten, p. 12, note, refers these col- 
umns to the original Greek building. 

2 During his exploration of the interior in 1862 Bétticher discovered two Ionic capitals which he assigned to 
original Greek interior columns, since they were found below the Christian pavement (Untersuchungen, p. 194). If 
this is correct, they cannot have belonged to the church. As the pavement, however, had by that time disappeared, 
it is far from certain that all the objects discovered by Bétticher had been concealed beneath its slabs. These capitals 
do not seem to have been marked in any way and are no longer to be identified. 


504 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the interior, forming somewhat deep piers (PLATE XX XI), which were probably faced with 
marble, since a narrow space, 0.11 m. deep, for such a revetment has been left between the 
blocks of the piers and the upper course of the aisle walls. In Phares XXXI and XXXITa 
pilaster has been restored in front of this revetment, but it is possible that this place was 
occupied by a column instead of a pilaster, since the revetment covered the entire eastern 
face of the pier. It is reasonable to suppose that there were shallow pilasters at the eastern 
end of the aisle walls on either side of the iconostasis (PLATES XX XI, XXXII), but the 
existing remains do not afford conclusive evidence on this point. 

It remains to consider the significance of the dowel cuttings in the upper surface of the 
aisle walls.! At first thought it might seem obvious that these dowels secured the columns 
or their bases. Such a theory, however, is hardly consistent with the position of the cut- 
tings. On each aisle wall the columns, and consequently their bases — assuming that bases 
were present — must surely have stood on the axis of the wall, and, if they were dowelled, 
the dowels also would have been on, or close to this axis. Now the cuttings are not on the 
axis of the wall, but distinctly nearer to the aisles than to the nave (PLATE XXXI), and, 
therefore, any connection with either columns or bases becomes extremely doubtful, if not 
quite impossible. 

Another solution may, therefore, be presented, which at least avoids this difficulty. 
The dowels secured four stone slabs (the presence of the pour channels makes the use of 
wooden screens less probable), which filled the intercolumniations and formed a barrier be- 
tween aisles and nave. Such slabs need not have been wide, and consequently on the 
north wall it was only necessary to cut away the moulding of the architrave blocks to the 
level of the upper fascia in order to obtain an adequate bed. Nor does the width of the 
intercolumniations present any difficulty, for both architrave and frieze of the Erechtheum, 
to say nothing of the many stelae on the Acropolis, furnished an ample supply of blocks 
quite long enough for this purpose. Thus the low wall and the slabs upon it provided a 
seat with a back on each side of the nave and at the same time formed a complete barrier 
between this part of the church and the aisles. 

The purpose of such a barrier is not far to seek. In the early church, apart from the 
separation of the catechumens from those who had been admitted to full membership, the 
congregation was divided according to sex, age, and official position, and the special groups 
duly assigned to special places at the services.2. The system is clearly defined, though with 
many differences in detail, in the several documents which, under various names and in 
diverse languages, have apparently preserved large parts of an order and a liturgy of the 


1 These cuttings have apparently been entirely neglected hitherto. They do not appear on any known plan, 
nor are they mentioned in any discussion of the Erechtheum. Michaelis in his plan of the church (J.-M., Acta Arcis, 
No. 251) restores four columns on each side of the nave, but without apparent reference to the actual position of the 
cuttings. 

2 On the general subject of the division of the congregation, see Crostarosa, Le basiliche cristiane, pp. 63 fi.; 
Holtzinger, Altchristliche Architektur, pp. 175-177; V. Schultze, Archaeologie der christlichen Kunsl?, p. 52; F. X. 
Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, I, p. 295; Lemaire, L’Origine de la basilique latine, pp. 80 ff. and 102 ff. 


HISTORY 505 


Oriental church originally in use in pre-Constantinian times.! It is true that they make 
no mention of artificial barriers but carefully prescribe the direction and oversight needed 
for all to find and keep their proper places. By the end of the fourth century, however, 
a wall separated the women from the men in the Greek church, according to Chrysostom,? 
and scattered references show that a place for the women, and especially for the conse- 
crated virgins, was fenced or screened from the rest of the congregation in the West.’ The 
early statements are not very definite as to the position of the places assigned to the two 
sexes, but both the life of St. Ambrose by Paulinus and the Liber Pontificalis imply that the 
matroneum was near the presbyterium and the pulpit,’ while the testimony of Symphorius 
Amalarius and Leo Allatius ‘ definitely assigns the men to the south or right side and the 
women to the north or left.° There is thus in Christian usage ample authority for separating 
aisles from nave, and although with changing customs the screens and partitions naturally 
disappeared,’ a few widely scattered monuments still show such barriers as seem once to 
have existed in the Erechtheum. 


1 The Tesiamentum Domini, Canones Hippolyti, Traditio Clementis, Didascalia, Apostolical Constitutions, etc., 
in Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Greek, and Latin. A convenient summary of this literature is given in J. Cooper 
and A. J. Maclean, The Testament of Our Lord, pp. 3-14. The most important passage is in Const. A post., II, 57, 
2 ff. (Funk). The parallel passages are translated in M. D. Gibson, Horae Semiticae, II, p. 65, Ch. XII (Syriac); 
T. P. Platt, The Ethiopic Didascalia, p. 93, Ch. XII (Ethiopic); Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles, pp. 194-195 
(Ethiopic and Arabic). 

2 Chrysostom, Homil. in St. Matth., LX XIII (LXXIV), 3 ad fin. (Migne, 58, col. 677): ’"Expiv per oby evdov exew 7d 
Teixos TO dtetpyov buas Tav yuvak@v ered 5é ob BobdrcecHe, dvayKkatov &vouoapy elvar of waTépes, KaY Tais caviow buds Tabrats 
duarerxioar’ ws éywye axolbw Tv mpecBuTepwy, Sti TO Tadatoy ovbE TadTA HY TA TELxXLa. 

3 Somewhat later the Greek church set apart the galleries for the women, and this practice still continues in 
many places. 

4 Ambrose, De lapsu virg. consecr., VI, 24 (Migne); Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii, 11 (Migne); Liber Pontificalis, 
Gregory IV (Duchesne, II, p. 80), Paschal I (cbid., II, p. 61), and Symmachus (ibid., I, p. 262). 

5 Symphorius Amalarius (or Ammularius), De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, III, 2 (Migne): ‘In conventu ecclesiastico 
seorsum masculi et seorsum feminae stant, quod accepimus a vetere consuetudine. ... Masculi stant in australi 
parte et feminae in boreali.”’ Leo Allatius, Tractatus de Templis Graecorum, Epist., I, 21: After discussing the sepa- 
ration of the sexes in the Eastern Church and saying that the women usually were placed in the narthex, he continues: 
“Ubi narthex nullus fuerit, ecclesia tabulato dividitur; pars, quae ante Bema recta procurrit, viris, obliqua mulieribus 
conceditur; quam si Gynaeconitim dices, non aberrabis a scopo.”’ See also Testamentum Domini (Syriac), I, 19, as 
translated by Cooper and Maclean, op. cit.: ‘‘Let that house have two porches, on the right and on the left, for men 
and for women.” The Syriac leaves it uncertain whether this refers to the exterior or the interior; if the latter, as is 
perhaps more probable, the ‘‘porches”’ are the side aisles and the arrangement of the sexes is the same as is found in 
the Greek and Latin churches. 

6 The custom continued long in some parts of the West. According to Rivoira, Orig. Archit. Lomb., I, p. 176: 
“Lo storico della citt& di Viterbo, il Pinzi, mi ha assicurato che nel Viterbese la separazione dei sessi nelle chiese, col 
mezzo di parapetti od anche col rialzo delle navatelle, fu mantenuta fin verso il Rinascimento.”” In the parish church 
of Arliano near Lucca, of the early eighth century (cbid., I, p. 117), the left aisle is wider than the right, as if to give 
more space for the women. It should be added that Holtzinger and Schultze believe that the nave, as well as the aisles, 
was open to the laity, and that the division between the sexes was down, or across, the centre of the church. What- 
ever may have been the case in some of the large basilicas, the monuments show that the nave was sometimes sepa- 
rated from the aisles, while there seem to be no remains of either longitudinal or lateral barriers in the nave. 

7 The barriers were not necessarily fixed partitions of stone. Movable screens of wood or even curtains may well 
have been employed. Indeed Crostarosa (op. cit., pp. 65, 69-73) and Lemaire (op. cit., pp. 107-108) hold that the 
latter were commonly used, and that the holes in which the sustaining rods were placed can still be seen in 8. Maria 
Maggiore and other Roman churches. 


506 THE ERECHTHEUM 


The low wall beneath the columns is found in the ruined church at Nemea,’ at Olympia ? 
(early fifth century), at Theotokou in Thessaly * (before 580 4.0. ; probably fifth century), 
in the ruined basilicas of Zenica and Dabravina in Bosnia (ca. sixth century), in the early 
basilica of Santo Stefano on the Via Latina near Rome (Fig. 211),° in the rock-cut church 
of the Madonna del Parto at Sutri,° and at Zana (Diana) in Algeria.” For the addition of 


Fieurz 211. INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH OF SANTO STEFANO ON THE VIA LATINA, ROME 


1 This church was cleared by the American School at Athens in 1924. The wall between the nave and the aisles 
is preserved on both sides, and near the east end of the south aisle wall there is a bench facing the nave. 

2 Olympia, II, pp. 93 ff., and fig. 52, pls. Via, LX VIII, LXIX. The wall on which the columns stood is ca. 0.50— 
0.60 m. high. Adler dates the church shortly after the earthquake of 426 a.p. In Rém. Quart., IV, 1890, p. 7, Stray- 
gowski maintained that there was also a low screen between the columns, as shown by the oblique cutting of the bases. 
No remains of such a screen have been found, and as neither bases nor columns were made originally for the church, 
this inference seems of very doubtful validity. 

3 Wace and Droop, ‘Excavations at Theotokou, Thessaly,’ B.S.A., XIII, 1906-07, pp. 309 ff., pl. X: “The walls 
between the nave and aisles still stand to a height of about half a metre” (p. 318). 

4 Ciro Truhelka, Rém. Quart., IX, 1895, pp. 211-222, especially p. 214. There are fragments of carved marble 
slabs in these churches, but it does not appear that they were placed between the aisles and nave. 

5 See Armellini, Le Chiese di Roma, pp. 887-888; Noack, Die Rémische Campagna, fig. 174; Nesbitt, Archaeo- 
logia, XL, 1, p. 168. For the discovery of the church and its history, see Fortunati, Relazione generale degli scavi e 
scoperte fatte lungo la Via Latina (1859); Tomasetti, ‘La Via Latina nel Medio Evo,’ Archivio della Societa Romana di 
Storia Patria, VIII, pp. 42 ff. 

6 Frothingham, ‘An Early Rock-cut Church at Sutri,’ A.J.A., first series, V, 1889, pp. 320-330, pl. X. In the 
basilica of S. Valentino on the Via Flaminia the columns of the interior stood on a special wall, but it is not clear that 
this wall projected much, if at all, above the level of the pavement (Marucchi, B. Arch. Com., XVI, 1888, pp. 434— 
ee in XIX, XX; Guida delle Catacombe Romane, p. 607; Il Cimitero e la Basilica di 8S. Valentino, pp. 118 fi., 
pl. IV). 

7 Mél. Arch, Hist., XIV, 1894, p. 542: ‘A Vintérieur la nef était séparée des bas cétés par deux mauvais murs 
en pierres de taille, qui ne s’élévent pas actuellement & plus de 0.50 m. au-dessus du sol primitif. On avait sans doute 
disposé sur chaque mur une rangée de pilliers, car on ne rencontre aucun vestige de colonnade.”’ 


HISTORY 507 


a screen between the columns the existing parallels are much less satisfactory, though it is 
possible to cite a few cases where such a division may be traced. The nave and aisles at 
Lamiggiga in Algeria were apparently completely separated by a double colonnade with 
a wall between the columns,” and at Siagu (Bir bou Rekba near Hammamet) Gauckler 
notes that balustrades inserted between the columns shut off the aisles from the nave, 


Figure 212. INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH OF SAN PIETRO AT TOSCANELLA, ITALY 


which was reserved for the choir. In the church at Sutri the rock between the pillars is 
so cut as to furnish a low back to the seat in the nave formed by the wall. In San Pietro 
at Toscanella * (probably of the eighth century) the bases of the columns are for the most 
part on the level of the pavement, but the intercolumniations are filled by a low wall, which 


1 The Choir or Schola Cantorum, extending into the nave and enclosed by marble slabs, such as still exists in the 
Roman churches of 8. Clemente and 8, Maria in Cosmedin and may be traced in the remains of many African churches, 
is not strictly analogous, unless indeed it may be thought probable that in so small a church as the Erechtheum the 
entire nave was reserved for the choir. 

2 Mél. Arch, Hist., XIV, 1894, pp. 518 ff.: “La nef centrale était séparée des bas cétés par une double colonnade, 
dont il reste seulement en place les deux bases . . . et par des murs en moellons, bitis entre les colonnes.” Cf. also on 
this feature in North African churches, 8. Gsell, Monuments antiques de l’ Algérie, II, pp. 147 ff. 

® Basiliques chréiiennes de Tunisie, p. 18: ‘Deux colonnades la divisent en trois nefs d’inégale grandeur. Celle 
du centre, trés large, est réservée au cheeur. Des balustrades, insérées entre les colonnes, l’isolent des bas-cétés.”’ 

4 Rivoira, Orig. Archit. Lomb., I, pp. 146 ff., especially p. 150: ‘Tra i sostegni ricorre un piccolo muro di tufo 
con sedile, che forma la separazione delle navi.” See also E. Gentile, Archivio Storico dell’ Arte, II, 1889, pp. 361 ff.; 
Venturi, Stor. Art. Ital., II, p. 123, fig. 98; Jackson, Byzantine and Romanesque Architecture, I, p. 216, pl. V. 


508 THE ERECHTHEUM 


shuts off the aisles and at the same time provides a bench with a back in the nave (Fig. 212). 
The church at Miletus, according to Wiegand,! had “choir benches”’ between the columns 
on the north side of the nave. These last three buildings are perhaps the best analogies to 
the Erechtheum. If it be said that all these parallels are somewhat far afield, there is in 
Greece the bench in the church at Nemea, and also a probable example of closed inter- 
columniations in Athens itself. In 1881, there were uncovered on the slope of Lycabettus 
(22 ‘Odds Toaxéd\wd) the remains of an early church. According to Strzygowski,? who was 
able to examine the site soon after, the building was of the fifth century, and had the form 
of a small basilica with an apse. The interior columns stood on high pedestals and the 
intercolumniations were closed by stone slabs set in slots cut in the sides of these pedestals.’ 

In view of all these facts the restoration proposed for this part of the interior of the 
Erechtheum, though it must remain conjectural so long as the slabs are not identified, is in 
accordance with the indications furnished by the remains and with the testimony as to 
Christian practice given by literature and the monuments. 

At the east end of the nave was the usual screen before the altar. Only the threshold 
and one of the carved slabs have survived. The threshold, 0.51 m. wide and 0.196 m. 
thick, is composed of two blocks (Fig. 207). The northern one is 1.233 m. long, and a cut- 
ting for a 4 clamp ‘ on the bottom of the eastern face shows that it was once part of a 
lining or facing. The southern block is 3.181 m. long. A moulding on the western edge of 
the top has been cut away, and further evidence of previous use is supplied by a lewis hole ° 
near the centre and two cuttings for =| clamps near the ends’° of the east face. It thus seems 
to have formed part of a facing with a moulding at the bottom. In the threshold are two 
shallow circular depressions, 0.355 m. in diameter, for columns. As has been said, it is 
probable from the dimensions’ that the fragments of pavonazzetto found in the Erechtheum 
are from these columns. Two small shallow holes, 0.97 m. apart, one behind each cutting, 
obviously held the pivots of the doors of the iepa ridn. 

The slab from the screen (Fig. 213) is 1.655 m. long, 0.975 m. high, and 0.312 m. thick. 
Experiment showed that it belonged north rather than south of the door, and it was replaced 
in 1914.8 It has suffered somewhat in the course of time. There is a crack across the centre, 
the front surface of the left upper corner has been broken away and so has the right 
upper corner, though two large fragments, not yet re-attached, supply a large part of the 

1 ‘Sechstes vorliufiges Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen zu Milet,’ Abh. Berl. Akad., Phil.-hist. Cl., 1908, Suppl. 
3 Fi R6ém. Quart., IV, 1890, pp. 3 ff. The remains were discovered in building a private house, and are now concealed. 

* It would seem at first sight more probable that these slabs separated nave and apse, but the dimensions given 
by Strzygowski, whose accuracy there is no reason to distrust, exclude such a disposition. 

4 The cutting is 0.096 m. long and 0.455 m. from the south end. 

® The lewis hole is 1.51 m. from the north end, 0.15 m. long, 0.038 m. broad, and 0.09 m. deep. 

® One is 0,402 m. from the south end, and the other 0.50 m. from the north. 


* The fragments are from 0.27 to 0.29 m. in diameter, but allowance should be made for a low moulding at the 
bottom of each column. 


8 It was seen in its present position in 1861 by E. Breton (Athénes décrite et dessinée, p. 169). 


HISTORY 509 


missing portion. The stone was originally an inscribed stele, and the opening letters of 
many of the lines are preserved near the bottom of the western face ; single letters are also 
faintly visible here and there on the raised portions of the surface.! 

The decoration is simple. Within a rectangular field is inscribed a rhombus, or lozenge, 
composed of four flat bands in relief, separated by shallow depressions with a heart-shaped 
leaf at the angles. In the centre of the rhombus are two interlaced squares surrounding a 
“transenna” pattern. To the right and left of the squares are four intertwined circles, 


Figure 213. CARVED SLAB FROM THE ICONOSTASIS 


The broken corners are replaced. 


grouped three about one. The triangular spaces outside of the rhombus are divided by 
inverted triangles in relief into three smaller sunken triangles, in which are carved in relief 
buds or perhaps pomegranates. The relief throughout is low and perfectly flat, with rec- 
tangular edges and no attempt at moulding. Such a decorative scheme, even though rudely 
executed, is amply sufficient to assign the screen to its place in the long series of similar 
slabs, which are so widely diffused throughout the Byzantine world.? The general simpli- 


1 Stschoukareff, Ath. Miti., XII, 1887, pp. 131 ff.; J.G., II, 5, 946. The inscription seems to have contained a 
list of litigants in cases of diadikasia. 

2 On this type of decoration see: Strzygowski, ’Ed¢. ’Apx., 1902, cols. 91-92; Amida, pp. 172 ff., 338; Brehier, 
Nowvelles archives de missions scientifiques et littéraires III, pp. 59, 81 ff. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, pp. 
166 ff.; G. Millet, Monastére de Daphni, pp. 12 ff.; also in Michel, Histoire del’Art, I, 1, pp. 154-155, including a 


510 THE ERECHTHEUM 


city of the design, which avoids the complicated interlacings and elaborate floral ornaments 
common in the eleventh century and later.! would alone suggest»a relatively early date, and 
this view is confirmed by the fact that the various elements, which are here united in one 
pattern, are found separately in decorations belonging to the time of Justinian or even 
earlier. Thus, to cite only a few examples, the characteristic rhombus (or square), stand- 
ing on one corner, either alone or grouped in a concentric series, was employed in the 
churches of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (early sixth century) and of 8. Sophia (537 a.p.) at 
Constantinople, in 8. Apollinare Nuovo (early sixth century), S. Vitale (547 a.p.), and 8. 
Apollinare in Classe (549 a.p.) at Ravenna, and in 8. Demetrius (fifth century) at Thes- 
salonica.2. These buildings, and others belonging to the same general period, also furnish 
instances of the use of the ‘‘transenna,” the interlaced squares, and the inverted triangles, 
although the latter apparently do not occur elsewhere in relief, but only in marble in- 


crustation.® 


discussion of the general development of the decoration of the sculptured slab; Leclereq, Dict. archéol. chrét., s.v. 
‘Dalles-Balustrades’; Laurent, B.C.H., XXIII, 1899, pp. 238-262, especially pp. 245-255. Laurent’s argument that 
blocks sculptured on one side only are from facings, not from screens or parapets, must be used with caution, since 
the slab in the Erechtheum has a plain back and yet is certainly from the screen between nave and sanctuary. 
Among the many carved slabs in San Marco, Venice, is a fragment showing considerable resemblance in pattern and 
technique to the example in the Erechtheum (Ongania, La Basilica di San Marco, V, pl. 362, 13). 

1 On this later style of decoration, see Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, pp. 428-430, fig. 206; Dalton, Byzantine Art 
and Archaeology, pp. 169, 170, fig. 97. Slabs of this type are used in the iconostasis of the great church of 8. Luke of 
Stiris shown in Figure 214. 

2 §S. Sergius and Bacchus; on the soffits of the intercolumniations (Pulgher, Les églises byzantines de Constanti- 
nople, pls. III, V; Ebersolt et Thier. , Les églises de Constantinople, pl. XI, figs. 17, 25). S. Sophia; in the galleries, 
both on the balustrades (Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmdler von Konstantinopel, pl. XVI, 5, outside; Lethaby and 
Swainson, The Church of Sancta Sophia, p. 261, fig. 6, inside; Antoniades, "Exdpacts ris ‘Ayias Zodias, II, p. 262, figs. 
330-332, pl. Z’, both sides), and on the lintels above the windows and the panels below them (Antoniades, op. cit., 
p. 129, fig. 181, panel below; II, p. 269, fig. 342, lintel); in the marble incrustation of the Bema, sometimes with the 
large triangles in the corners of the rectangle divided, as on our slab, by inverted triangles of a different color (Salzen- 
berg, op. cit., pls. XXI, XXII; Antoniades, op. cit., II, pl. NA’). S. Apollinare Nuovo; a concentric series on the 
marble front of the pulpit (Ricci, Ravenna, fig. 54; Michel, Histoire de V’art, I, 1, p. 152, fig. 90; Dalton, op. cit., fig. 
443). §. Vitale; a single rhombus, carved on the panels below the marble incrustation, and inlaid, with the inverted 
triangles in the corners, above it (Ricci, op. cit., fig. 44). S Apollinare in Classe; a single rhombus carved on the 
bases of the columns (de Dartein, Architecture lombarde, pl. III; Dehio und von Bezold, Kirchliche Baukunst des 
Abendlandes, I, pl. XX XI, 2; Ricci, op. cit., figs. 13, 14). 8S. Demetrius; before the destructive fire of August 18, 
1917, a lozenge with an inscribed circle was visible on the balustrade in the northern intercolumniation of the western 
gallery (Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture, pl. XXI), while slabs and fragments, built into later walls and 
pavements, prove that before the transformation into a mosque, which naturally led to the removal of the iconostasis 
and similar screens, this type of decoration occupied a prominent place in the church (Papageorgios, Byzantinische 
Zeitschrift, XVII, 1908, pl. XX). 

’ The “transenna” is obviously the transference to relief of a common pattern in the pierced screens, such as are 
found, for example, in the church at Olympia (Olympia, II, p. 94, fig. 52, pls. Via, LXIX; see also Leclereq, Dict. 
archéol. chrét, s.v. ‘Cancel’). It was carved on the balustrade of the central intercolumniation in the western gallery 
of S. Demetrius at Thessalonica (Texier and Pullan, op. cit., pl. XXI), and appears on a stucco fragment from S§. 
Stefano on the Via Latina (Nesbitt, Archaeologia, XL, 1, p. 203, fig. 9), on the bronze doors of the Lateran Baptistery, 
dedicated by Pope Hilarius (461-468 a.p.), and on a pluteus in Rome (Venturi, Stor. Art. Ital. I, p. 458, fig. 415; 
p. 449, fig. 407). The interlaced squares were inlaid in colored marble in the spandrels of the arches below the side 
galleries of S. Demetrius at Thessalonica (Texier and Pullan, op. cit., pls. XX, XXVI, 2; Papageorgios, op. cit., pl. 
XIV, 2), and in the choir of the cathedral of Parenzo (Errard et Gayet, L’Art byzantin; II, Parenzo, pl. X1). They 
are carved below the windows of the southeast gallery of S. Sophia at Constantinople (Antoniades, op. cit., II, p. 327), 


HISTORY oll 


The evidence, therefore, shows that the screen of the Erechtheum both in the general 
design and in the individual details conforms to a type of decoration which was extensively 
employed in the monuments of the first half of the sixth century. It would be rash, how- 
ever, to conclude that it is contemporary with these great works. Its carving is plainly 
very rough; there is no modelling, no rounding of the edges, no deepening of the channels, 
and the combination of the elements of the pattern is, as has been said, in some respects 
unusual. All this suggests an unskilled hand imitating better, perhaps imported, models. 
Strzygowski long ago argued ! that the presence of slabs of Proconnesus marble, decorated 
in this style, in many places near the coast pointed to their manufacture in or near 
Constantinople and to their import by sea. Such importation is proved for Attica by the 
slabs at Kaisariani, which suggest the sources from which the stonecutter of the Erechtheum 
derived his inspiration. The crudity which appears here is of the same kind as that shown 
by the use of poros in the south and marble in the north aisle wall — a contrast which can 
be due only to indifference, since there was certainly no lack of marble on the Acropolis, — 
by the neglect to dress down the fasciae on the architrave blocks in the north wall, and by the 
disproportion between the jambs and bases in the central opening into the nave, — if indeed 
these jambs belong to the church and not to a still later alteration. It is hard to associate 
such methods with the age of Justinian, even in a provincial city like Athens; they belong 
rather to the deep decline of the late sixth and the seventh centuries. 

At the ends of the aisles are the thresholds over which the Prothesis (north) and Dia- 
conicum (south) were entered. Each is formed of a single thin slab of marble ? with nearly 
identical cuttings (PLaTEs II, XX XI; Figs. 101, 215). At either end is a narrow slot which 
is carried back a short distance into the outer walls,* and close to the outer end of each slot 
in the south and one slot in the north threshold is a small hole with a pour channel. The 
north threshold has also two dowel holes in each slot. The natural interpretation of these 
marks seems to be that panels were set in the slots, while dowels in the outer holes secured 
stone jambs which supported an architrave (PLatEs XX XI, XXXII).4 At the north end 
of the threshold of the Prothesis the slot has been sunk in a larger but shallower depression, 


and on a pluteus in the Grotte Vaticane (Venturi, op. cit., I, p. 452, fig. 410), decorate a mosaic pavement in the 
“Palace of Theodoric” at Ravenna (Rivoira, Architettura musulmana, fig. 240), and — to draw an example from a 
different field — frame, in a rope pattern, the portrait of the Princess Juliana in the Vienna manuscript of Dioscorides 
(Diehl, op. cit., p. 222, fig. 108). For the inverted triangles in 8. Sophia and in §. Vitale see the preceding note. The 
little groups of circles do not seem to occur elsewhere in relief, though they appear in a pierced screen in 8. Apollinare 
Nuovo at Ravenna (Diehl, op. cit., p. 180, fig. 87; Dalton, op. cit., p. 695, fig. 442). 

1 *Ed.’Apx., 1902, col. 92, in his discussion of the carved slabs in the church at Kaisariani. 

2 In the north aisle the stone is 1.84 m. and in the south 1.70 m. long, the difference being due to the projection 
of the foundations on the south side. 

3 Commencing with the northernmost, and including the cutting of the slots into the north and south walls, 
these slots measure respectively 0.60 by 0.095 m.; 0.445 by 0.09 m.; 0.43 by 0.08 m.; 0.465 by 0.075 m. 

4 There is no positive evidence as to the material of the panels, but the width of the slots seems to be more suit- 
able to stone slabs. Wooden panels would probably have been thinner. The openings were apparently closed by 
curtains, as there are no pivots for doors. It is possible, however, that wooden doors were attached to the stone 
jambs by hinges. 


912 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the shape of which indicates that it was intended for the foot of a rectangular pilaster faced 
by a half column (PLATE XXXI; Fig. 90). It seems clear that. this cutting has no connec- 
tion with the use of the slab as part of the threshold. These remains, though insufficient 
for any conclusive reconstruction, suggest that the general appearance of the screen must 
have been very similar to that which may be seen in the great church of the monastery of 


Figure 214. ICONOSTASIS IN CHURCH OF ST. LUKE OF STIRIS, PHOCIS 


St. Luke of Stiris in Phocis (Fig. 214), or in a ruder form before the grave of St. Nicholas 
at Myra and in St. Cosmas at Amida.! 

East of the screen present conditions throw little light on the earlier arrangements. On 
the south the Diaconicum has preserved in great part its pavement of thin gray marble 


* St. Luke, Archaeologia, LV, 2, pl. XXXIV; Schultz and Barnsley, The Monastery of Saint Luke of Stiris in 
Phocis, pp. 31f., pls. 5, 18, 22-24; St. Nicholas, Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmédler, p. 335, fig. 126; St. Cosmas, Van 
Berchem and Strzygowski, Amida, p. 170, fig. 89. In the Erechtheum the space above the marble slab of the iconosta- 
sis may have been filled by a wooden grille (PLATE XXXII), or by paintings. 


HISTORY 513 


slabs (PuatEes II, XX XI; Fig. 215). Similar slabs covered the threshold and faced the 
jambs of the opening (1.65 m. wide) which led into the sanctuary (Figs. 210, 215). About 
0.15 m. below the marble was a brick pavement, which is now visible toward the east where 
the marble has been broken away. In the Prothesis the marble pavement and the facing of 
the jambs of the doorway (also 1.65 m. wide) into the sanctuary have disappeared, but a 
considerable part of the underlying brick still remains (PLarEs II, XX XI; Fig. 90). The 
sanctuary itself was cleared by the Greek Commission in 1852, when a Christian grave and 
very solid late substructures were removed.! No plan or detailed description of these re- 
mains seems to have been prepared, and in view of the recent discovery of early walls be- 
neath the Erechtheum, it may be doubted whether all these remains were as late as the 
Commission supposed. According to Pittakis, the inscription, Ed. ’Apy., 1853, p. 1043, 
No. 1958 (J.G., III, 59) formed part of “‘the altar of the church toward the south,’ —a 
description which is of little assistance in the reconstruction of this part of the church.’ 

One other alteration may with some probability be attributed to the existence of the 
church, — the narrow windows in the side walls. At present there are three in the south 
wall (PLates VI, XII, XX XI, X XXII), irregularly spaced in the upper part of the ortho- 
states, and two in the corresponding course (12) of the north wall (PLates V, XI, XXX1).’ 
This course as rebuilt in the eastern part of the wall shows no trace of a third window, but 
as the stones used are not always in their original positions, the absence of such a window 
cannot be regarded as certain. All the windows are of about the same size, having a height 
of 0.37 m., an exterior width of 0.08 m., and an interior of 0.44 m., except the western 
window in the north wall, which is but 0.31 m. wide on the interior, since it is cut at the end 
of a block and widened only at one side. They are not, however, symmetrically placed, 
since those in the north wall are about 0.16 m. higher than those in the south, and are also 
farther west, the western window being 0.74 m. beyond the corresponding window on the 
south, while in the next pair the distance has grown to 1.20:m. The windows are about 
3.60 m. above the pavement of the nave. 

The existence of these windows and their approximate position were announced by C. 
Botticher ‘ in his discussion of the Report of the Greek Commission, as strong evidence for 

1 Report Gr. Comm., § 35, at end. 

2 Pittakis, l.c. Hipov abriy 7d 1853 "Iovdtou 24 els 7d "EpexOerov evrerxropevnv avamoba bro THY Tpods TO VOTLOV ayiay Tpa- 
metav Tis eet ’"ExxAnoias. A little later the inscription is referred to as found im rv ayiav Tpamrefay ris voriou rheupas 
Tov ’"EpexGeiou. ? 

3 In the south wall the western window in the orthostate next to the Porch of the Maidens is filled with marble 
on the outside and brick within; the eastern window is also hidden on the inside by the modern brick lining. The 
spacing is as follows: eastern window 3.35 m. from the eastern corner; second window 6.50 m. from the first; third 
window 4 m. from the second. In 1860 Pittakis told Michaelis that the central window had been replaced by him, 
but that the eastern and western were in their original positions (Ath. Mitt., II, 1877, p. 20; see also Jahn, Pausaniae 
descriptio arcis Athenarum?, pl. VII, a). There is some mistake here, as it does not appear that any orthostate of the 
south wall has ever been removed or replaced (Report Gr. Comm., § 6). In the north wall the western window is 2.30 m. 
from the east jamb of the North Door, and the second window is 3.34 m. farther east. 


4 Botticher, Z. Bauwesen, IX, 1859, cols. 317-321; Untersuchungen, pp. 198f. He communicated his suspicion 
that there were windows in the side walls to Schaubert in Athens about 1844, who examined the building and con- 


514 THE ERECHTHEUM 


his theory of subterranean chambers in the Erechtheum. His study of the building in 1862 
only strengthened him in this view, which was at first shared. by Michaelis as the result 
of an independent study in 1860;1 but the later investigations of Borrmann and Rangabé * 
have shown that his assumptions lacked foundation and that these windows surely had no 


Figure 215. DIACONICUM AND SOUTH AISLE, FROM EAST 
(JANUARY 26, 1914) 


place in the original structure. In fact their irregular and unsymmetrical spacing, their in- 
ferior, though not excessively rude, workmanship, and their position, except in one case, in 


firmed this surmise, but gave no particulars. The approximate position of the windows was determined by Botti- 
cher from photographs. Two windows in the north wall appear in the elevation of the inside by Joseph Woods in 
Br. Mus., MSS, Add. 22153, fol. 53. All but the western window in the south wall (then filled with brick) are shown 
in the original drawings of the north and south elevations made by Tétaz in 1848, now in the library of the Ecole des 
Beaux-Arts in Paris; see also D’Espouy, Mon. ant., pls. XXXVI, d, XX XVIII, h. They are omitted in the reproduc- 
tions in R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158. 

1 Michaelis, Ath. Mitt., Il, 1877, p. 20. He abandoned this view after the publication of Borrmann’s article. 

* Borrmann, Ath. Mitt., VI, 1881, pp. 384 ff.; Rangabé, ibid., VII, 1882, pp. 264-267. 


HISTORY 515 


the centre of the blocks, when it would have been far easier to place them at the joints had 
they been cut before the stones were laid, — all these considerations indicate that they were 
added to meet some new condition due in all likelihood toa change in the use of the building. 

That this new condition was the need for better lighting in the aisles of the church 
seems a reasonable supposition, though there is no positive evidence for the date of their 
construction. The shape of the openings, narrow outside and splayed within, is that given 
in Lombard churches to those windows which were to remain without glass. The earliest 
examples are apparently those in 8. Giorgio di Valpolicella (ca. 730 A.p.), and the type had 
become common by the eleventh and twelfth centuries.!_ In the early Christian churches 
windows seem generally to have been numerous and large.? If, therefore, these windows 
belong to the church, their form, like the other details already noted, suggests a date as 
late as the seventh or perhaps even the early eighth century for the transformation. 

Any further attempt to reconstruct the church must depend in large measure upon con- 
jecture, since no remains of the upper part have yet been identified. The plan, however, 
is obviously that of an aisled basilica, and it is reasonable to assume that the rest of the 
building presented the characteristic features of this familiar type. Moreover, if an ap- 
proximately correct date has been assigned to the church, it probably resembled the basilicas 
of the fifth and sixth centuries at Constantinople, Salonica, and Ravenna, rather than 
those of the Orient; or even those erected in Greece after the ninth century.’ If these prem- 
ises be accepted, there can be little doubt about the general appearance of the building, 
whatever the uncertainty as to details. In accordance, therefore, with the examples just 
cited — and the number might easily be increased — the church in the Erechtheum should 
be restored with a lofty nave, rising to a considerable height above the aisles, lighted by 
windows in the clerestory, and covered by a gable roof of wood (PLare XXXII). It must 
remain uncertain whether the intercolumniations of the arcade between nave and aisles 
were spanned by architraves or arches, but the latter are more common,‘ and have accord- 
ingly been drawn in PLate XXXII. The aisles were presumably lower than the nave and 
covered with sloping wooden roofs.> In view of the absence of traces on the side walls of 


! A. K. Porter, Lombard Architecture, I, pp. 63-64. 

2 Holtzinger, Altchristliche Architektur, pp. 65 ff. 

§ On the early Christian basilica see, for example, Holtzinger, Altchristliche Architektur, pp. 30 ff. On the later 
types, as developed in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and elsewhere, see G. Millet, L’Ecole grecque dans UV architecture 
byzantine, pp. 15 ff., 21 ff., 36 ff. Good examples of the earlier type, to which the church in the Erechtheum presum- 
ably conformed, are S. John of the Studium at Constantinople (Ebersolt et Thiers, Les églises de Constantinople, 
pp. 4 ff., pls. I, II), S. Demetrius at Salonica (Diehl, Le Tourneau et Saladin, Les monuments chrétiens de Salonique, 
pp. 61 ff., pls. XIII, XX—X XII), and 8. Apollinare Nuovo and S. Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna (Rivoira, Orig. 
Archit. Lomb. I, pp. 39 ff., fig. 62, and pp. 82-85, figs. 130, 132; Ricci, Ravenna, figs. 12-14). 

4 Holtzinger, op. cit., p. 4. 

5 Since the side walls of the Erechtheum were standing to the height of the epicranitis, it might at first sight ap- 
pear more natural to continue the sloping roof of the nave across the aisles to these walls. Such a radical departure 
from the normal occidental and Hellenic form of basilica, in which the aisles are almost invariably lower than the 
nave, might be explained by the peculiar position of this church within the ancient temple. This restoration, however, 
cannot be considered wholly satisfactory, for it leaves the interior dependent for its ight upon the somewhat scanty 
amount admitted by the slots in the side walls and the conjectural windows in the gables of the nave. 


516 THE ERECHTHEUM 


cuttings for timbers which clearly belonged to the church,’ it seems probable that horizontal 
cross-beams ran from the walls of the nave to the outside walls at intervals of about three 
or four metres; on these rested Jongitudinal beams which in turn supported the rafters 
(PLate XXXII, above). The analogy of other churches warrants the restoration of a 
similar low roof over the narthex, and it seems quite possible that the position of the bottom 
of the southernmost horizontal cross-beam of this roof is indicated by the edge of the slightly 
raised surface near the bottom of course 8 at the west end of the south wall (PLatE XII); ? 
in that case the little jog in the raised edge and its descent into course 9 farther east may 
be interpreted as marking the profile of the stone bed, projecting slightly from the west 
wall of the church, upon which the end of the wooden beam rested. It will be noticed that 
if the roof were at this height, the rain water could be carried off from the roof through 
the Roman windows.® 

If, however, this church is to be assigned to the period between the late sixth and the 
early eighth centuries, as the evidence already collected appears to indicate, what was the 
fate of the Erechtheum during the considerable interval between the overthrow of pagan- 
ism ‘ and the construction of the church? It is surely improbable that a temple remained 
so long untouched. <A possible answer may be found in a further examination of the 
interior. 

In the north aisle are two irregular masses of concrete (opus incertum), one a little east 
of the opening to the crypt, the other at the entrance to the Prothesis (PLatTss II, XX XI). 
The Report of the Greek Commission, § 44, shows that similar masses were found in 1852 
in the north and south aisles on the line of the Greek east cross-wall and removed by the 
Commission.® There are also traces of a concrete foundation on the rock in the south aisle 
opposite the western foundation in the north aisle (PLATES II, XX XJ), and indications of a 
similar construction at the entrance to the Diaconicum, where some concrete is still in place 
under the threshold, though there is no clear evidence as to its original extent.® 

The natural explanation of these foundations is that they served to support piers or col- 

1 There seem to be no cuttings for beams in blocks known to belong to the south wall, and those in course 8 of 
the north wall (PLaTr XI) are almost certainly connected with the Turkish house (p. 524). As the system of roofing 
proposed in the text requires only four or five cross-beams over each aisle, it is hardly surprising, considering the 
condition of the blocks from the side walls, that cuttings for these beams are no longer traceable. 

* For another possible explanation of this raised surface, see Ch. I, p. 175. 

* If the great cistern at the west end of the Erechtheum is Byzantine or Frankish, the water from the roof of 
the church would naturally have been collected in it. The very meagre evidence, however, suggests that the cistern 
was constructed for the Turkish house; see p. 523. 

* Cf. Strzygowski, Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, pp. 271-296; ’Ed. ’Apx., 1902, cols. 89-91. He would date the trans- 
formation of the Parthenon near the middle of the fifth century. 

> Tétaz plainly marks the foundation in the south wall on his plan, and also on the section as published in R. 
Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158, though it is lacking in the original drawing. The corresponding portion of the north aisle 
was then unexcavated, but his plan shows the west edge of the concrete emerging from the earth. A fragment of this 
northern concrete, closely resembling a poros block, still remains just east of the foundation of the eastern cross-wall 
(Puatss II, XX XT). 


: It should be noted that here the native rock rises to almost the same height as the top of the concrete in the 
north aisle, so that the artificial foundation may well have been less extensive as well as less thick. 


HISTORY 517 


umns in contact with, or in close juxtaposition to, the side walls. Such piers obviously are 
no part of the Greek temple nor can they be connected with the Roman repairs, unless these 
involved a fundamental alteration of the whole interior, for which there is no other evidence 
in any part of the building. Yet they antedate the church, for the threshold of the Pro- 
thesis, which is laid upon the concrete, leaves on either side a projection scarcely wide 
enough to serve as a support, even if a pilaster were at all probable in such close proximity 
to the narrow entrance. Moreover, pilasters or columns, if shallow, would not have re- 
quired such solid foundations, while if they had had much depth, they would have seriously 
blocked the aisles. In view of these conditions the conclusion is warranted that the six 
foundations are connected with a period in the history of the Erechtheum intermediate 
between the temple and the later church, when the building, east of the old Prostomiaion, 
was transformed into an oblong hall with three pairs of columns or pilasters projecting 
from the side walls, and thus forming a series of niches or shallow recesses. It is also clear 
that these alterations imply the previous removal of the east cross-wall and the levelling of 
the interior, changes which naturally involved the loss of the ceiling and roof. Whether the 
east wall of the temple was also removed at this time cannot be determined with certainty. 
On the one hand, if the new hall were a church — and such extensive reconstruction of a 
temple for other than a religious purpose is very unlikely — we should expect an apse at the 
east end and consequent destruction of the wall and its foundations; on the other hand, the 
aisle walls of the later church are composed of the poros blocks from these foundations (p. 8) 
which, therefore, escaped demolition by the earlier builders. As, however, only part of the 
missing foundations are thus employed, the later apse may well have been an enlargement of 
an earlier one.! 

The simple hall without aisles is a form of church somewhat widely used in the East and 
in the lands bordering on the eastern and southern Mediterranean, especially for small 
chapels, although the aisled basilica was naturally preferred for large buildings.* Nor is 
the appearance of piers or columns close to the side walls rare. In Syria the earlier churches, 
often of considerable size, frequently have an undivided nave, spanned by transverse arches 
which spring from such piers as those predicated for the Erechtheum, and support flat or 
gable roofs of stone.* Piers are also found in Asia Minor, but in these churches the arches 


1 It may be noted that of the three surviving fragments of the architrave from the east wall the two used in the 
later church were those originally near the ends (p. 45; Fig. 11), while the fragment from near the centre, which would 
have been removed in constructing an earlier and smaller apse, shows no sign of re-use in the church, 

2 Cf. H. Leclereq in Dict. archéol. chrét., s.v., ‘Basilique.’ 

3 For Syrian churches of this type, see H. C. Butler, Princeton University Expedition to Syria, 1904-05, Div. II, 
sec. A (Southern Syria), p. 92, il-Umta-‘tyeh, chapel, 6.70 m. wide; p. 114, Sabhah, chapel, 6.20 m. wide; p. 128, 
figs. 103, 104, KhAzimeh, south church, 6.80 m. wide; p. 138, fig. 117, Umm Kil-uttén, ruined church, 8.50 m. wide; 
pp. 171 ff., especially 173, figs. 147, 150-154, Umm-idj-Djimél, several churches including those of Julianos, 345 a.p. 
(the earliest church dated by an inscription) and of Masechos, both 8.35 m. wide. The same system of supports for 
roofs or ceilings is found in houses, tombs, and naves of aisled churches; cf. Choisy, Histoire del architecture, I, p. 532, 
fig. 17; Benoit, L’ Architecture; l’ Antiquité, p. 485, fig. 324, III; Butler, Architecture and Other Arts (American Expe- 
dition in Syria, 1899-1900, Part II), pp. 25-26, 112-113, fig. 43; M. de Vogiié, Syrie centrale, pls. 69, 84. 


518 THE ERECHTHEUM 


are not transverse, but longitudinal, and strengthen the walls sufficiently to sustain the 
thrust of the barrel vault with which the nave is covered.! In upper Mesopotamia and 
Armenia the churches with an undivided nave seem to have been roofed by a barrel vault, 
which is sometimes strengthened by transverse arches, springing from pilasters projecting 
from the side walls; 2 more commonly, however, the pilasters support longitudinal arches, 
forming shallow arcades, as in Asia Minor.’ In some of the chapels of North Africa similar 
projections, which from the remains may be inferred to have commonly supported columns 
or half columns, appear in plan, but the complete loss of all traces of the superstructure 
leaves their precise function uncertain.* In the Erechtheum also it may be assumed that 
the pilasters or columns were connected in some way with the problem of the roofing, and 
the suggestion may be ventured that they supported transverse arches as in Syria, or pos- 
sibly longitudinal arches which were needed to enable the walls to bear a vaulting such as 
the thicker walls of the “‘Theseum”’ carried without need of additional buttressing.® The 
experiment, however, does not seem to have been wholly successful, for it is hard to attri- 
bute the later alterations to any other cause than the need of replacing the earlier structure. 

That the church was dedicated to the Virgin may be inferred with considerable proba- 
bility from certain graffiti on the wall of the North Portico. In 1859 Pittakis published the 
following invocation, which he said was inscribed to the east of the North Door, where, 
however, it cannot now be found: Ocoddxve Aéorowa mist&v TO Képas o@fe kal PiAaTTE Tov cov 
ix[érnv] Altjovicr[ov] *Iwavynv tamewov kal Wadrnv Kabodys éxxAnoias “AOnvav. “Awnyv.® This 
evidence, which was hardly conclusive so long as it stood alone, has been confirmed by 


1 On these churches in Asia Minor, see Ramsey and Bell, The Thousand and One Churches, pp. 176 ff., No. 36, 
figs. 180, 140-142; p. 299; pp. 324 ff., where this type is discussed at some length. 

2 Cf., e.g., Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, I, p. 141, the little church at Eghiward with a 
single transverse arch; p. 142, church at Schirwanschuk, divided by three pilasters for transverse arches under the 
barrel vault into bays 3.60 m. long by 5.40 wide. 

3 Cf. Strzygowski, op. cit., pp. 138-139, church at Ani; Miss G. L. Bell, ‘Churches and Monasteries of the Tur 
Abdin’ in Van Berchem und Strzygowski, Amida, pp. 243 ff., where four churches with single vaulted and arcaded 
naves are described, — Mar Azaziel at Kefr Zeh, Mar Kyriakos at Amas, Mar Sovo at Khakh, and Mar Philoxenos 
at Midyat; Millet, L’Ecole grecque dans l’architecture byzantine, pp. 46 ff. 

4S. Gsell, Monuments antiques de l Algérie, pp. 151 ff. on churches with a single nave. Mél. Arch. Hist., XII, 
1893, pp. 529, 534; XIV, 1894, pp. 34, 567, 594f. The chapels with an undivided nave in Constantinople (A. van 
Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, pp. 10, 211, 264, 284, 336) and in southern France (e.g., Dehio und 
von Bezold, op. cit., pls. 93 ff., text I, pp. 323ff.), in spite of their similarity in plan, are apparently not earlier than the 
eleventh and twelfth centuries, and are therefore too late to be of value in this connection. The early churches with- 
out aisles in Rome, such as 8. Balbina and 8. Andrea in Catabarbara, have no projections from the side walls, which 
are strong enough to support the vaulting without buttressing. The Cretan churches, or more properly little chapels, 
of this character (Gerola, Monumenti Veneti nell’ Isola di Creta, 1, pp. 178, 196, 198; figs. 22, 137, 138, 142, 143, 155, 
272, etc.) are both too small and of too uncertain date to be used in the reconstruction of the Erechtheum, but their 
presence in considerable numbers in the island is not without significance for the geographical distribution of this type. 

® Sauer, Das Theseion, p. 2. The walls of the Theseum are about 0.76 m. thick; those of the Erechtheum 0. 65 m.; 
but even in the Theseum the vaulting has pushed the walls a little out of the perpendicular, and thus affected the 
columns and entablature on the sides (Penrose, Ath. Arch., p. 72, note 3). Flat longitudinal architraves seem less 
probable than arches, since the axial distance of the piers can hardly have been less than 3.5 m. 

® *Ed.’Apx., 1859, pp. 1809-10, No. 3647. Cf. A. Mommsen, Athenae Christianae, No. 37, pp. 40 ff.; L. Petit 
de Julleville, ‘Recherches sur l’emplacement et le vocable des églises chrétiennes en Gréce,’ Archives de missions 
scientifiques et littéraires, Sér. II, Vol. V, 1868, pp. 477 f. 


oa 


HISTORY 519 


two more graffiti discovered in 1924. Both are rudely scratched on the first block west 
of the east anta of the portico, in the course above the orthostates.! One inscription con- 
tains only two words, jump 6v (Mnrip Ged); the other is longer, but is badly written and 
almost illegible. It seems to read as follows: Oewr x deomnva | BonOn Tw oo dovdo Yewood . . TOV 
anv, — that is, Oeordxe kal Aéorrowa Bohbe Tod cod SobAov Peowo . . TOV (?). ’Auhy. 

Additional testimony for this dedication would be furnished by the fragmentary medi- 
aeval Latin inscription published by Emile Burnouf in 1877,2 if we could be sure that 
its discoverer had rightly determined its provenience. Unfortunately the stone seems to 
have disappeared, and while Burnouf’s good faith is, of course, absolutely beyond doubt, 
there is no way of supplementing his very brief and somewhat indefinite statement, or of 
discovering the reasons which led him to feel sure that the fragment was originally in the 
Erechtheum and that it referred to the titular of the church. 

There is no evidence as to the condition of the Erechtheum during the Latin domination, 
apart from the very dubious reference in the fragmentary inscription just quoted. If, how- 
ever, as Buchon believed,’ the palace of the Dukes really extended along the north side of 


1 The first inscription is about 0.335 m. above the bottom of the block and 0.02 m. from its east edge. The 
second is about 0.285 m. above the bottom and overlaps the east edge, #e in line 1 and £o in line 2 being on the block 
of the anta. Both inscriptions are almost invisible except when the wall is lighted by the direct rays of the sun. Two 
other graffiti, which have been found on this wall, throw no light on the title of the church. The first was published 
in 1874 by the Russian Archimandrite Antoninus (O drevnikh’ khristianskikh' Nadpisiakh’ v' Afinakh’, p. 38, No. 1; pl. 
14), and reprinted by N. Beés (Rém. Quart., X XVI, 1912, p. 69) in the following form: Ktpse BofOer rod SobAov ood 
Eiruxeavod | Sopeorixov. *Aunv. The second, hitherto unpublished, was found in 1923 on the upper part of the first ortho- 
state east of the North Door, and reads as follows: urep nynas x|€ cornpnas ke adece|os auaprnov Tov dovdov Tov | @v abavov 
kA.,—that is, ‘Yrép bytelas kal owrnpias kal adécews &uapriay Tod dobdou Tod Heod ’APavaciov (?) xAnprxod (?). There are also 
faint traces of other graffiti in the second course above the orthostates, but they have thus far defied decipherment. 

* Burnouf, La Ville et lAcropole d’Athénes (1877), p. 124, “J’ai ramassé au pied de |’Acropole un fragment 
d’inscription portant les mots . . . is ac matris, c’est a dire virginis ac matris; le reste se trouve sur l’Acropole et 
provient de l’église de l’Erechthéum. C’est donc celui-ci qui était l’église de la Mére de Dieu.’’ Burnouf’s further 
argument that the presence of the Latin inscription shows that the chapel was built, or at any rate thoroughly restored, 
by the Dukes of Athens, obviously rests on very slender foundations, if the inscription contained only the three words 
cited. 

3 Before the discovery of the invocation to the Virgin, Pittakis referred to the church as % é«Anota rod Xpicrod 
CE@.’Apx., Nos. 1102, 1400), and ro Zwripos Xpucrod (ibid., No. 1204), which may mean that he thought it dedicated 
to the Saviour, or may be merely his way of saying that it was a Christian church. Struck (Athen und Attika, p. 140) 
says it was first dedicated to the Virgin and later probably to the Trinity (S. Trinitatis, wie aus einer einzigen Nachricht 
sich schliessen lasst). This seems to be a reference to the inscription, ’E@. ’Apx., 1859, p. 1901, No. 3712, containing the 
epitaph, dated in 1064, of Mapivn, jyounern tis Moris ris ‘Ayias Tprddas. The stone was found, according to Pittakis, 
north of the Parthenon among walls which he connected with the convent and its chapel. There is, however, nothing 
to show that the Erechtheum was included in the convent or even that the latter was on the Acropolis. If Neroutses 
(AeAriov ris iorop. kai vor. ‘Erarpias, III, p. 93) is right in saying that before 1846 the stone was in a wall of the 
monastery attached to the present Russian church, all reason for connecting it with the Erechtheum vanishes. 

4 Buchon, La Gréce continentale, pp. 128-129. Though this theory was adopted by Bohn (Propylaeen, p. 7), and 
also inferentially by Pittakis, who in 1860 published many inscriptions as found between the Propylaea and the 
Erechtheum in the ruins of the palace of the Dukes of Athens (e.g., ’E¢.’Apx., Nos. 3715, 3722, 3723, 3728, etc.), no plan 
or description of the remains on which this identification rested was ever published or apparently even prepared, and 
Buchon’s further belief that the subterranean chambers of the Erechtheum contained traces of the dungeon of the 
castle, suffices to show that on the Acropolis, as elsewhere, his enthusiasm for that Frankish period, which he did so 
much to elucidate, sometimes led him beyond the limits of discretion in the interpretation of the evidence. His 
incautious statement on this point has been followed without hesitation by Philadelpheus, ‘Icropia trav ’A@nvar, 
ip 472. 


520 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the Acropolis from the Propylaea to the Erechtheum, it is easy to understand why the 
latter — whether still a chapel } or already secularized,? — being inaccessible to the public 
as one of the palace dependencies, and very probably then, as later, surrounded by other 
buildings, escaped the notice of visitors to the Acropolis, including even that zealous arch- 
aeologist and keen observer, Ciriaco of Ancona.’ 

There remains for examination a passage in the Vienna Anonymous in which some 
critics have found a mention of the Erechtheum. After describing the lower city, the 
writer comes to the Acropolis, and continues as follows: 10. Eis yotv riv axporodw jyov 
eloepxoueve ebpioxopev va puKpov didackadeloy Sep UTHpXE THY povotkGy: dep Ivbayopas 6 Zapuos 
ouveothoaro. Karévayre b¢ Tobrou ott TadaTLoy péytoTov: Kal broKxaTwhev TovToV* toTavTaL TAELTTOL 
[ktoves], Nevxev 5€ pappapwy TAovTE? ory TH pod] Kal Tots TeixEot. mMpds de TO BOpELov KAELTOS UTHpXE 
Taoa Kayyevapia €x wapuapou Kal KLovwy TeTolnuevn NEVKGV. KaTa VOTOV bé TAUTHS UTHpXEV ] TTOA eV 
TOUKiAN WpaLoTnTL, TepiKexpvowpEern YUpoley Kal eEwOev kal AiPors TLulois KexooUnMErN* OLA TAUTHY Kai 
Lroixol Prrdcogor eA€yorTo ot €v Tab’Tyn pabnrevOevtes. avTixpls dé TabTys TO TOV ’Emtkoupeiwy HKuace 
didacKadetov.® 

There is general agreement as to the first three monuments. The little “School of the 
Musicians” is identified with the temple of Athena Nike; the ‘‘ Palace” is certainly the 
central part of the Propylaea, which was the residence of the Florentine Dukes and after 
them of the Turkish commandants; and the xayyeAapia® cannot be placed elsewhere than in 
the north wing. When we turn to the “‘Stoa”’ and the ‘‘School of the Epicureans,” the 
divergence begins. Ross and Laborde place the Stoics in the Erechtheum with its rich 


1 The palace chapel appears in an Aragonese document of 1380 as “‘la capella de sant berthomeu del palau del 
Castell de Cetines,” and in 1391 in the treaty between Nerio Acciaiuoli and Amadeus VII of Savoy simply as “‘capella 
palatii’’; see Rubio y Lluch, Los Navarros en Grecia, p. 254, No. XXXVI; Gregorovius, Stadt Athen im Mittelalier, II, 
pp. 194, 241-242; Miller, Latins in the Levant, pp. 315, 344. Gregorovius, p. 313, identifies this chapel with the north 
wing of the Propylaea, but the central column and the vaulting, removed only in 1837, are in themseives no evidence 
of religious use — in fact a central column is, to say the least, rather unusual in a church, — and it seems more natural 
to find its site within the Acropolis in the church, the remains of which were until recently visible in the angle between 
the north wing and the main hall of the Propylaea (Beulé, I, pl .II1; Bohn, Propylaeen, p. 31; Pittakis, "Ed. ’Apx., 
1853, p. 939), or, less probably, in the Erechtheum itself. 

2 The statement of Pittakis (L’ancienne Athénes, p. 396) that the Erechtheum was a church in 1220 rests on no 
ascertainable authority. 

’ Breton’s remark (Athénes décrite et dessinée, p. 147) that Ciriaco saw the inscription of the temple of Rome and 
Augustus (J. G., III, 63) in the Erechtheum, is due to misunderstanding “‘ad praefatae Palladis templi vestibulum,” 
which, of course, refers to the Parthenon. 

4 The words éo7t radaruv . . . robrov are repeated in the manuscript over an erasure. 

5 Manuscript in Vienna, Cod. theolog. Gr., 252, fol. 29-32. Facsimile and text, Laborde, Athénes, I, pp. 16 ff. 
Text, Ross, Arch, Aufs., I, pp. 251 ff.; Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, I, pp. 738-39; J.-M., Acta Arcis, pp. 30-31. The text 
here printed is that of Michaelis. This description is usually assigned to a time shortly after the fall of the Acciaiuoli 
(1458), but before the transformation of the Parthenon into a mosque. Kamporoglu (‘Ioropia rév ’A@nvalwr, Tovpkoxparia, 
I, pp. 156-157, II, pp. 27 ff.) has argued for a date as early as 800 a.p., and Philadelpheus (‘Ioropia r&v *AOnvav, II, 
pp. 384-391) for one in the eleventh or twelfth century. Both writers consider the “Dukes” as legendary pagan 
rulers, but their arguments are not conclusive, and although little enough is known of Athens during those centuries, 
nothing suggests sufficient interest in the remains of the past to give rise to the compilation of such a guide. 

6 The word is usually regarded as the Latin cancelleria and interpreted as referring to the Ducal chancery. Lam- 
bros (translation of Gregorovius, op. cit., II, p. 359, note 2) connects it with xéyxeddos, Mod. Gr. kayke\\Gpa, and con- 
siders that it describes the colonnade in front of the Pinacotheca. 


HISTORY 921 


ornamentation and colored inlay in the capitals of the North Portico, and the Epicureans 
in the temple of Rome and Augustus, or preferably in the precinct of Artemis Brauronia; 
Wachsmuth on the other hand regards the east portico of the Propylaea as the ‘‘Stoa,”’ and 
the Erechtheum as the School of the Epicureans; while Bohn, who attributes the mediaeval 
tower to the Turks, sees in the undamaged south wing of the Propylaea and the sanctuary 
of Artemis the sites of the two schools.1 

The identification of the “Stoa”’ with the Erechtheum is hard to accept. The former is 
said to be south of the Pinacotheca; the latter is northeast. Ross indeed sought to remove 
this difficulty by reading xara v&rov, an easy emendation, but open to the objection of 
Laborde and Wachsmuth that such an expression is not in accord with the style of the 
writer,” and also to the criticism that emendation to introduce a building unnoticed by 
contemporaries, though now conspicuous, is not quite consistent with sound method. Nor 
is Laborde’s assumption of a simple blunder much better, for, so far as can be judged, the 
topographer is remarkably accurate in giving the relative position of the monuments, and 
it is almost incredible that he should be guilty of such a confusion of the points of the 
compass. ; 

As it stands the Greek certainly suggests that the author had in mind the south wing 
of the Propylaea as the former seat of the Stoics. The absence of gilding and precious 
marbles in this building need not trouble us, for these adornments are quite as likely to 
owe their presence in the text to the epithet zovxidy as to any existing remains. The real 
difficulty is that at that time the original colonnade had given place to the great tower, 
which must surely antedate the use of artillery and consequently the Turkish conquest. 
This is certainly an obstacle to the proposed identification, but it is perhaps not absolutely 
conclusive. According to later writers, two of the columns of this wing, though concealed 
externally by the wall of the tower, were not entirely hidden, and although the third column 
had already disappeared, the bed in which it rested was always visible.? Under these con- 
ditions, tradition would naturally assume that there had once been such a portico or 
““Stoa”’ here as could plainly be traced on the north side. Moreover the “‘Stoa”’ is described, 
like the xayyeAapia and the School of the Epicureans, in the past tense (irfpxe). Doubtless 
nice distinctions of style cannot safely be predicated of our author, and there is, of course, 
much uncertainty about the identity of some of his references, but it is not without signifi- 
cance that he regularly employs the present tense to describe monuments which we know 
were relatively undamaged or unaltered, while he prefers the past tense for those which had 

1 Ross, op. cit., pp. 270-273; Laborde, op. cit., pp. 24, 30-31; Wachsmuth, op. cit., pp. 738-739; Bohn, Propy- 
lagen, p. 11, notes 4 and 5. 

2 The corruption assumed by Ross finds some support in the very similar error (5) ZéHAovos for Zédwvos, but while 
such words as tAnotlov, dvrixpts, trepbe, xatévarte, droKdrwhev, etc., are used, there seems no indication of direction by 
a prepositional phrase except with reference to the points of the compass. 

3 On the later condition of the south wing, cf. Chandler, Travels in Greece, p. 42, Stuart and Revett?, II, p. 106, 


note c; Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 312, who distinctly states that two columns and the anta were to be seen inside of the 
tower. 


522 THE ERECHTHEUM 


already fallen into ruin or had been converted to other uses.’ If this principle is here fol- 
lowed, the tense indicates that the supposed stoa had already lost its original form, as was 
certainly true of the south wing after the erection of the tower.2 However, the east portico 
of the Propylaea was probably better preserved at this time than the south, and Wach- 
smuth may be right in his conjecture that it is meant by the ““Stoa,” although since this 
part of the building was visible only after passing around the south wing, we should ex- 
pect it to be described as ‘“‘to the east” rather than ‘‘to the south” of the Pinacotheca. 
As to the Epicureans, their “School” is naturally to be sought close at hand, and the 
Brauronian precinct seems to offer the most probable site. Once the Stoics had reached 
the Acropolis, a place for their rivals must be found, and scanty remains would be quite 
sufficient for this purpose. On these points a positive decision cannot be reached in the 
present state of the evidence, but there is certainly no compelling reason or even strong 
ground for referring anything in this passage to the Erechtheum. 

It remains to summarize briefly the conclusions which may fairly be drawn from this 
somewhat detailed analysis of the scanty evidence as to the condition of the Erechtheum 
in Byzantine and Frankish Athens. The building was first transformed into a simple 
church (or possibly a secular hall) with an undivided nave and perhaps an apse at the east- 
ern end. Additional support for the roof, which was probably vaulted, was secured by 
three pairs of columns or piers, adjacent to the side walls, from which sprang either longi- 
tudinal or transverse arches. Later this building was further altered into a little basilica. 
The arches and their supports were removed; the interior was divided into a nave and 
aisles, separated by alow wall on which stood columns with slabs filling the lower part of the 
intercolumniations, the wall and slabs being so arranged as to form seats with backs on 
either side of the nave; and a screen or iconostasis was erected in front of the sanctuary and 
its adjoining rooms. This church was certainly provided with an apse, which, if not a 
wholly new feature, was probably an enlargement of the earlier one. These successive 
transformations naturally wrought great destruction in the ancient temple. The east wall 
and its foundations were almost entirely removed to make room for the apse; the East 
Cella was destroyed and the ground beneath its pavement excavated to the level of the 

1 To cite only a few clear examples: — The present is used of the Tower of the Winds, the Stoa or Gymnasium 
of Hadrian, the statues of the “Giants,” the Theseum, the Monument of Lysicrates, and the Gate of Hadrian. Most 
of the remains described by the past tense are of very doubtful identity, but they probably include the Pnyx with 
the cuttings in the rock above, the Odeum of Herodes, and the Dionysiac theatre. The past tense describes the 
Olympieum, since the columns were supposed to be only a small part of the royal palace. The Stadium is spoken of 
in the present tense but the seats in the past. Naturally the past tense is used in referring to the time of the Dukes, 
and this would explain the presence of trfjpxe, if xayyeAapia means “chancery.” If Lambros is right, the tense implies 
that the intercolumniations of the north wing were already closed. 

* But for the use of tenses in this passage it would be simplest to see in the ‘“‘School of the Musicians’’ either 
the remains which Spon (II, p. 104, edit. 1679) and Wheler (p. 358) identified with the Propylaea, or other walls, 
believed to be ancient, near the foot of the modern steps or the Beulé gate, and to place the Stoics and Epicureans in 
the temple of Nike and the south wing. The use of the present, however, in the reference to the School of the Musi- 


cians suggests a fairly well-preserved building like the temple, which it is hard to believe could have been described, like 
the “Stoa”’ and the School of the Epicureans, in terms that suggest it had ceased to exist. 


HISTORY 523 


western rooms; all the interior walls disappeared, carrying with them the ceilings and roof, 
and a new western cross-wall rose on the old threshold; five or six small windows were cut 
through the side walls; the North Door was reduced in size by the insertion of a marble 
lining and the door in the west wall was slightly enlarged; and, finally, much of the frieze 
and architrave was torn down, and some of the blocks were employed in the new construc- 
tion. There is no evidence of any changes in the North Portico or the Porch of the Maidens, 
though it is not unlikely that the entrance in the podium of the latter was closed, so that 
it was accessible only through the church. The dates of the alterations are unknown, but 
the first church is probably contemporary with the transformation of the Parthenon, while 
the second may belong to the seventh century or even later. The arrangement of the 
church, so far as can be judged from the remaining traces, was adapted to the Greek rather 
than to the Roman rite. There is no satisfactory evidence as to the use or condition of the 
building during the period of Latin rule at Athens, but apparently it was incorporated into 
the palace of the Dukes, and it may even have been completely secularized. 


IV. Tue ERECHTHEUM AS A TURKISH HOUSE 


Wits the definitive Turkish occupation of Athens in 1458, the establishment of a garrison 
on the Acropolis, and the transformation of the Parthenon into a mosque there can be 
little doubt that the Erechtheum lost whatever religious character it might have hitherto 
preserved and speedily became the dwelling that Spon found it in 1676. This transference 
to secular use, whether accomplished by the Turks or their Frankish predecessors, obviously 
involved considerable alteration, but the existing evidence is far too scanty to justify even 
a tentative restoration of the house, and little more can be attempted here than a record 
of the changes that have left their marks upon the building. 

To this period, as has been said above,? may be assigned the final form, if not the first 
construction, of the great cistern with its concrete lining and vaulted roof beneath the old 
Prostomiaion. Since the crown of the vault rose above the old sill of the North Door, 
the latter then, if not earlier, must have been partially or wholly closed.? The work seems 
to have been fairly well done, apparently with stones from the frieze, since both Thiersch 


1 Tt is, of course, quite possible that the erection of buildings on the north and even some of the other alterations 
may be earlier than the Turkish conquest, and that while still a church the Erechtheum was part of a complex struc- 
ture. Since, however, none of these marks can be clearly associated with the church, it seems better to describe them 
in connection with the house, which we know existed in Turkish times and cannot assign with certainty to an earlier 
date. It may be argued that the cuttings on the inside of the north wall were for beams which supported a gallery 
in the church, but as there are no such cuttings in the south wall, the gallery would have extended over only one aisle, 
— not avery probable arrangement. Fallmerayer’s statement (Geschichte der Morea, II, p. 4387) that in 1500 the Pan- 
droseum was blown up by the explosion of a powder magazine, resting as it does on his very suspicious ‘‘fragments”’ 
(cf. Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, I, p. 14, note 4), is disproved by the later condition of the building. The “fragment” 
containing this information has apparently never been published. 

2 See pp. 169 f., 496. 

3 It is natural to suppose that a small door here afforded a means of communication between the two parts of the 
house, even if the main building was then only an open court. 


524 THE ERECHTHEUM 


and Forchhammer regarded it as part of the original structure, and the latter endeavored 
to find in the filling the “black stones” of the Chandler inscription.’ 

Just east of the North Portico another cistern was excavated and connected with the 
crypt under the Portico by breaking through the foundations close to the main building, as 
already described.2 Probably the crypt itself was also cemented at this time and the cir- 
cular shaft constructed in its northwest corner. A vault, which rose above the old ground 
level, covered the outer cistern (PLATE LIV, 2; Fig. 224), which was, however, according 
to later drawings (PLATE LI, 2; Figs. 218, 222), included within the house. This extension 
of the building on the north renders it probable that the intercolumniations of the Portico 
were also closed, at least in part,’ but it must remain uncertain whether the vault which 
existed later within the Portico was built before its conversion into a powder magazine.* 
The small door in the North Portico was also then or earlier fitted with a lining having an 
arched top (Fig. 228), which was not removed until 1909.° 

There is no direct evidence as to the condition of the Porch of the Maidens at this time, 
but since there were certainly remains of a rough wall between the statues in the eighteenth 
century, when the building as a whole was no longer used, it is a fair inference that this 
Porch also was walled up and incorporated in the house. 

In addition to these changes the walls of the building show cuttings which are not 
clearly connected with the church, but may with strong probability be referred to the house. 
On the inside of the north wall (PLATE XI) there is in course 8 a row of six square cuttings 
for beams with traces of a seventh (Figs. 32, 101).° In the fourth orthostate east of the 
great door, in the block of the north wall directly above it, in the sixth block from the door 
in course 16, and in course 7 just west of the projecting block of the Roman west cross- 
wall, are cuttings for dowels, which might belong either to the church or to the house. In 


1 Forchhammer, Hellenica, I, p. 31; Thiersch, Hrechtheum, I, pp. 82, 96. Thiersch (op. cit., p. 179), was speedily 
convinced of his error by Rangabé, but even as late as 1887 Forchhammer persisted that both the filling in the great 
door and the cistern under the west room belonged to the original Greek construction, and deplored their mistaken 
demolition; see Allgemeine Zeitung (Munich), 1887, Oct. 18, No. 289, cols. 4257-58, and the conclusive reply of Dérp- 
feld, ibid., Nov. 18, No. 315, cols. 4651-52. 

2 Ch. I, p. 105. Botticher (Untersuchungen, p. 192) and Michaelis (J.-M., Atlas, XX, XXVI) maintain that 
here was the cesspool of the house, but without presenting any arguments in support of this view. 

’ That the North Portico was already walled up in 1676 may be inferred from its identification with “the lesser 
temple” by Spon and Wheler. An open portico would hardly have been considered a separate temple. 

* Rangabé, Rk. Arch., II, 1845, p. 321, dates this vault soon after the Turkish conquest, because it was of more 
solid construction than the Turks of a later day would execute. He is, however, almost certainly wrong in assigning 
the powder magazine to so early a date (see below, p. 532), and the shape of the vault, as shown in the later drawings 
(Pirate LIV, 1, 2; Figs. 224-226), suggests that it belongs to the magazine rather than the house. 

® When the lining was removed an unintelligible graffito was uncovered, which was certainly not in Greek but 
might have been in Latin or Italian; unfortunately it was not copied and has now disappeared. The lining is, there- 
fore, probably later than the Frankish conquest in 1204. That it was earlier than 1687 seems certain from the condi- 
tion of the building after that date. Although later concealed by a mass of rough masonry, this door remained the 
entrance to the powder magazine (cf. p. 555, and note 1). 

§ Whether these cuttings extended farther to the east is uncertain. The stone containing the sixth and seventh 
cuttings is much defaced and the wall beyond is missing. 


HISTORY 525 


the sixth, seventh, and eighth orthostates east of the great door is a long late cutting, 
rudely executed, but with fairly well-defined limits (Fig. 101). 

The south wall (PLatE XII) has no cuttings for beams on the inside, except in a single 
block, the second east of the east cross-wall in course 8 (Fig. 30), which has two cuttings 
very similar in size and spacing to those in the north wall. As a few blocks from the north 
wall were used in rebuilding the south (p. 578), it is very possible that this stone originally 
belonged in course 8 of the north wall. In the fourth orthostate east of the south door and 
extending a short distance into the poros block on the east is a rude cutting, similar to that 
just noticed in the orthostates of the north wall, but rougher and less well defined (Fig. 
100). There is also a square dowel cutting in the third block from the west end of the wall 
in course 7, and a round hole in the second block east of the south door in course 16. 

The inside of the west wall (PLATE X) contains in course 13, descending slightly into 
course 14, three large cuttings for beams (Figs. 207, 208). The central cutting, just north 
of the west door, now holds a new marble block; that on the south, below the north side of 
the southern pilaster, is filled with brick; that on the north, under the north window, is 
open. It seems highly probable that there was a fourth cutting at the north end of the wall, 
where there is now a modern filling; there was certainly no cutting at the south end. These 
beams may have supported a gallery in the rear of the church, but it is quite as likely that 
they belonged to the house. Across the top of the door, in courses 14 and 15, is a shallow 
cutting, as if for a board, with a dowel (or tenon) hole at either end of it in course 15. A 
little south of the door, also in course 15, are two shallow rectangular vertical cuttings, and 
in course 17, near the southwest corner, is a small rectangular hole. On the inner face of the 
lintel, in the space above the door, are no less than nine small rectangular cuttings or drilled 
holes, which may possibly be due to the presence of a painted wooden panel over the door 
of the church. The significance of two deep rough cuttings, sagging slightly from the 
horizontal, in courses 17 and 18 (orthostate) immediately north of the door remains prob- 
lematical. In course 17 the cutting extended from near the door almost to the centre of 
the second block on the north; on the orthostate it reached beyond the preserved surface, 
but does not appear on the next block. 

The outside of the north wall (PLATE V) contains in course 10 a series of cuttings for 
beams, which begins close to the east anta of the North Portico and extends toward the east. 
Owing to the destruction of part of the wall the original number of cuttings is uncertain, 
but there were at least eight, since the block now replaced in course 12, which is in its 
correct position on the line of the east cross-wall, was originally two courses higher, and 
an intervening block has disappeared. Apart from this well defined series there are scat- 
tered cuttings in other parts of the wall. In course 2 the block adjoining the North Portico 
is cut along the bottom of the eastern part as if for the side of a beam and there is a square 
beam hole near the western end. In the east face of the east anta of the North Portico a 
beam hole has been cut in the upper part of course 10, and there is a similar hole in course 


526 THE ERECHTHEUM 


12 (Puates III, XXXV, 4; Fig. 233). In course 16 of this anta is a rough cutting extending 
about 0.52 m. on the north (PLaTE VII) and 0.18 m. on the east face (PLarE XXXV, 4; 
Fig. 233). It is very badly executed but is certainly a cutting and not merely a rude break- 
ing of the stone. On the east face of the central column on the east side of the North Portico 
is a horizontal cutting extending across five flutes about in line with the cutting in course 
10 of the anta; below this is another smaller cutting which now extends to the bottom of 
the drum, but has been enlarged by breaking away the edges (PLares III, XXXV, 4). 
Near the east end of the wall in course 16 the third block from the podium has at the 
bottom a large square cutting, 0.25 by 0.25 m., for a beam, and at the top, above the east 
end of the large cutting, a small one only 0.07 by 0.07 m. 

All these cuttings, except perhaps those in course 16 of the anta and of the wall, seem to 
be connected with the house which the drawings ! of the eighteenth and early nineteenth 
centuries show in ruins on this side of the Erechtheum. In the drawing by Pars (1766; 
Puiate LI, 2), which, because of the date, point of view, and great accuracy of the artist, 
is the best authority for the conditions then existing, a wall, parallel to the north wall and 
abutting on the Portico just south of the corner column, is connected with the main build- 
ing by two cross-walls, thus forming two sections, which cuttings for beams show to have 
been divided, at least in the eastern part, into three floors.2, The testimony of Pars is con- 
firmed by Gell and Smirke (ca. 1800-03; Figs. 219, 222; Puare LI, 3) and by Fauvel’s 
rude sketch for a plan of the Acropolis made about 1787 (Fig. 218).* That these rooms 
were part of the house seen by Spon can hardly be doubted, since all available evidence 
shows that after the Venetian siege in 1687 the Erechtheum remained unoccupied. 

On the outside of that portion of the south wall which has remained undisturbed (PLATE 
VI) there is no trace of abutting structures except three cuttings for beams in course 6 in 
the block adjoining the Porch of the Maidens (PLar—E XXXIV, 1). Another cutting which 
may belong to the same series is in the seventh block to the east in the same course, but 
this block is in the restored part of the wall. There are numerous smaller and shallower 
cuttings, generally roughly made, jn other blocks on this side, but as most of the south wall 
between the Porch of the Maidens and the southeast anta has been rebuilt since 1838, not 
without some use of material from the north wall, it is quite impossible to draw any valid 
conclusions as to earlier conditions from the present positions of these cuttings. The later 
drawings show no remains of a building in contact with this side of the Erechtheum. 


1 On these drawings see pp. 544, 548, 554. 

> The single row of cuttings in the north wall seems to belong in the western section of the house, and shows that 
here the beams ran from north to south, while those in the eastern section ran from east to west. The double row of 
cuttings in the drawings (it is unlikely that both were in use at the same time) is apparently at about the same height 
as those now visible in the north wall. 

* The foundations of the western part of this house are shown in Cavvadias and Kawerau, Puatn I’. In the 
text (cols. 83-84) they are described as the foundations of two Turkish magazines. 

* For the sake of record a brief list of these cuttings is here added (PLaves III, XX XIII, 2, XXXIV, 1, 3; Fig. 
231); the blocks are all numbered from the east. Course 2, block 3, small cutting; course 3, block 2, two small irregu- 


HISTORY 527 


At the west (PLatE IV) the chief traces of later construction are (1) a rough sloping cut- 
ting, as if for the edge of a wooden roof, which, beginning at the north end of the wall in 
course 13, ends about 0.35 m. from the southern end of the second block in course 14 ; and 
(2) a shallow sloping cutting, which begins on the west face of the southwest pier of the 
North Portico in course 15, and continues in course 16 across the south face of the pier and 
along the west face of the little wall at the side of the door from the Portico into the Pan- 
droseum (PLATES XX XIII, 2, 3, XXXV, 1). A little south of the west door in course 14 
there is a slight cutting for the end of a beam, and over the door, about 0.02 m. above the 
lintel, are two dowel holes, one about 0.21-0.25 m. south of the north jamb and the other 
about 0.30—0.34 m. north of the south jamb (PLarz XXXIII, 3). In courses 7 and 8, on 
the wall between the southwest anta and the anta of the Porch of the Maidens, there is a 
fairly large hole for a beam (PLate XXXIII, 3). The later drawings do not here give us 
any help, for they show around the northeast corner of the Pandroseum merely a mass of 
masonry, which masked the entrance to the Turkish magazine in the North Portico. 

On the east there are merely horizontal cuttings in courses 4 and 5 of the southeast 
anta and on the west side of the second and third columns from the south in the second 
drum from the bottom (PLatr IX). To the Turkish period, or perhaps earlier, may, how- 
ever, be assigned with considerable probability the bit of patchwork beneath the lowest 
step at the northeast corner (PLATE LIV, 3; Fig. 7.4), as it existed before the excavations 
of 1887. It certainly forms no part of the reconstruction undertaken in the decade follow- 
ing the Greek Revolution, for in that case Schaubert, who was then living in Athens, and 
was thoroughly familiar with the work on the Acropolis, could not have been so ill informed 
as to attribute repairs which had just been made to the builders of the Christian church.! 
The same conclusion may be drawn from the Report of the Greek Commission of 1852,” 
which merely calls attention to the presence of these repairs without mention of their origin, 
although elsewhere it is careful to record and date all the restorations made by Pittakis. If, 
however, this work is earlier than the Greek Revolution, it probably also antedates the Ve- 
netian occupation of 1687. From the drawing of Dalton in 1749 (Puats L, 1) to that of 
Cole in 1833 (PLatx LIII, 3) the east front always appears buried in earth, which completely 
lar cuttings in the bottom; course 4, block 3, possibly a cutting for a square dowel near the centre; course 8, block 9, 
small cutting in bottom; course 9, block 8, two small cuttings, one at the left end, the other in the centre of the bot- 
tom; course 9, block 7, six small cuttings in bottom; course 10, block 6, five similar small cuttings in bottom; course 
11, block 8, rough cutting in face. It is probable that blocks 2 in course 3, 7 in course 9, and 6 in course 10 were 
originally in the same course, since the cuttings in these blocks agree in size and position. 

! E. G. Schaubert, Papers in Breslau, Mappe V, p. 312 (69): “Auf dieser Ostseite namentlich an der Nordecke 
scheinen bedeutende Reparaturen vorgekommen zu sein, vielleicht als man das Heiligtum in eine Kirche verwandelte. 
Ein dorischer aufrechtstehender Saiulen-Tambour ist als Unterstiitzung der Stufen angebracht. Wiewohl dieses 
nicht zu sehen war, so ist doch so wenig Sorgfalt den Alten nicht zuzumuten.” The date of this note is uncertain, 
but it cannot well be earlier than 1837, when the traces of steps at the northeast corner were discovered, since before 
that time the foundations at this point were probably concealed. The restorations of Pittakis were in 1837 and 1838. 

2 Report Gr. Comm., § 4. ‘* ’Execxevoapévn 5’ éori AiBors Kowots 7 Bopevoavatonky abrijs ywvia, kai tbhumavor Klovos igo- 


Mérpov Tots GAXNos dpGrar év airy, AelWavov tows Tod é Tijs ywvias EAAelrovTos Klovos, éav oxi TA wépn abrod Gmavra eis Ti 
’"AyyMav 6 "EXyw arnyayer. Obviously the Commissioners had no definite information about these repairs. 


528 THE ERECHTHEUM 


covers the bases of the columns, the steps, and all below. Moreover, not only were the 
foundations concealed and the need of any repairs thus rendered most unlikely, but all the 
available evidence shows that during this time the Erechtheum — with the exception of the 
North Portico — was abandoned and falling more and more into a ruin, which no one had 
the least interest in restoring. On the other hand, it is certain that Turkish or mediaeval 
vaults and walls at some time approached the Erechtheum very closely on this side * and 
their construction may well be responsible for the damage and rude repair of the northeast 
foundation. It is true that the date and purpose of these walls are unknown, but since no 
modern buildings appear in this immediate neighborhood, either in drawings or descrip- 
tions, we shall not go far amiss in assigning them to the prosperous period of Turkish Athens, 
before 1687, or even to a still earlier time. 

It has often been said? that when the military commandant (Disdar) took up his 
residence in the Palace of the Propylaea, he established his harem in the Erechtheum. No 
contemporary authority is ever cited for this statement, which seems merely an inference 
from the narratives of Spon and Wheler,’ who found themselves unable to see the salt well, 
because, to quote Spon, ‘‘il y avoit dans le batiment ot il est enclos, des femmes logées, 
et il n’y a que le maitre du Serrail qui y puisse entrer’’; or in the words of Wheler, “‘be- 
cause the Turk that lives in it, hath made it his Seraglio for his Women; and was then 
abroad.” That this Turk was the governor is nowhere stated, and in fact is wholly incon- 
sistent with the accounts of the explosion in the Propylaea a few years earlier,4 when the 
governor and all his household perished, except one daughter who was spending the night 
in the lower town. Obviously the harem was not then in the Erechtheum, since the damage 
was confined to a part of the Propylaea; nor was it removed there later, since Spon him- 
self, describing the explosion, continues (II, p. 141, ed. 1678), ‘‘ Les marques de ce desastre 
se voyent encore, et on n’y a pas rebati depuis, quoyque |’Aga d’a-present ait quelques 
chambres basses prés de 1a, ot il tient ses femmes.’’ There is no need, therefore, to see in 
the occupant of the Erechtheum any more important person than one of the ordinary 
residents of the Acropolis, which we know was the centre of the considerable Mohammedan 
colony in Athens.5 

1 See Fauvel’s rough plan of 1787 (Fig. 218) and a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute taken about 
1887 (A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 418, fig. 5). Gell’s drawing (Fig. 219) shows the remains of a wall between the col- 
ane: East Portico, and a sketch by Basevi (1818) He Sir John Soane’s Museum shows Turkish walls and houses 

2 This statament was apparently first made by C. O. Miiller, Minervae Poliadis Sacra et Aedes in Arce Athenarum 
(1820), p. 20, and repeated independently by Von Quast, p. 82, Thiersch, Hrechtheum, I, p. 82, and Laborde, Athénes, 
I, p. 6. See also J.-M., Acta Arcis, p. 25, No. 283; Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 354; Judeich, Topographie, p. 104; 
D’Ooge, Acropolis, p. 317. 

3 For the full text of these narratives, see App. A, III, IV. 

* For the explosion in the Propylaea see the Nointel Anonymous (Giraud?), C. R. Acad. Inser., 1897, pp. 64 ff.; 
Spon, II, pp. 140-141 (ed. 1678); Wheler, p. 359; De la Rue, Arch. Ztg., XXXVI, 1878, p. 57. On the date cf. J. R. 
Wheeler, Classical Review, XV, 1901, pp. 430 ff. 


® The Acropolis was wholly inhabited by Turks according to the letter of Kabasilas to Crusius (T'urcograecia, 
VU, 18, p. 461; J.—-M., p. 81; Laborde, Athénes, I, p. 58). According to the Nointel Anonymous (probably Jean 


HISTORY 529 


With the seventeenth century a new phase opens in the history of Athenian monuments, 
for western travellers now began to visit the city. At first their number was small and their 
descriptions were often very meagre and inaccurate, but from this time there is no consider- 
able break in the tradition, though it is one of the ironies of history that our information in- 


creases in fulness and accuracy while the buildings were falling more and more into neglect 
and ruin. 


The earlier accounts, such as those of Francois Arnould, Robert de Dreux, Babin, and 
Guillet,’ contain no mention of the Erechtheum, and this silence is easily understood, when 
we remember that the visitors to the Acropolis, as is clear from the vivid narrative of Robert 
de Dreux, entered to the south of the Propylaea and were conducted at once to the west 
entrance of the Parthenon, which as a former church and ‘“‘The Temple of the Unknown 
God”’ was the chief, if not the only, object of their curiosity. Such a route offered little or 
no view of the Erechtheum, screened as it must have been — and indeed was as late as the 
nineteenth century — by the houses which covered the Acropolis,? nor were the Turks 
disposed to permit much wandering from the beaten track within an important fortress, es- 
pecially during the long Cretan war with Venice. After 1670 travellers seem to have been 
somewhat less hampered, though Vernon found that attempts to take measurements were 
likely to lead to violence. 

It is not, therefore, until the visit of the Marquis de Nointel in 1674 that the Erechtheum 
again appears in the records of the Acropolis. It is not mentioned in the letters of Nointel, 
nor was it drawn by his painter, but it attracted the attention of Cornelio Magni of Parma 
(1), who was in his suite.* The party, according to Magni, were received by the comman- 


Giraud) some 600 out of about 2000 houses in the lower town were Turkish and about one-third of the population out 
of an estimated 7000 (M. Collignon, ‘Le Consul Jean Giraud,’ Mém. Acad. Insc., XX XIX, 1914, p. 395). Morosini 
reported to the Venetian Senate that 3000 persons, including 500 soldiers, surrendered, and that over 800 perished in 
the siege of the Acropolis, where all the Turks had taken refuge. If these two sets of figures — approximately 2300 
and 3800 — can be relied upon, the population of the Acropolis, apart from the garrison, must have numbered not 
far from 1000. 

1 These accounts are published as follows: Frangois Arnould, by Omont, Florilegium . . . Melchoir de Vogiié, 
pp. 467-484; Robert de Dreux, Voyage en Turquie et en Grece, ed. H. Pernot, pp. 141-156, and by Omont, R. Et. Gr., 
XIV, 1901, pp. 270 ff.; Babin by Laborde, Athénes, I, pp. 182-211, and by Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, I, pp. 745-763; 
Guillet, Athénes ancienne et nouvelle, Paris, 1675. Guillet, however, makes his travellers (p. 198) on leaving the Parthe- 
non see “‘ce puys celebre, dont on a totijours parlé, comme d’une des merveilles de la nature”; but his language shows 
plainly that he had no idea of any building associated with it, and there seems no reason to suppose that his knowl- 
edge was derived from any more recent source than the citations in Meursius. Certainly in 1669 the somewhat in- 
quisitive Father Robert heard nothing of the well from his Greek friends. 

2 The Acropolis at this time is shown in the drawings reproduced by Omont, Athénes, pls. XXIX-—XXXI; the 
later conditions in, e.g., Dodwell, Views in Greece, ‘The Parthenon from the Propylaea” and “West Front of the 
Parthenon and the Erechtheum.”’ 

3 For the passages in Magni and other early travellers referring to the Erechtheum, see Appendix A. The 
Roman numerals in the text are those prefixed to the quotations in the Appendix. 

Although Magni was in Athens in 1674, his description of the city was not published until 1688, when the Vene- 
tian victories had aroused a new interest in Greece. In the meantime he had read Spon’s book and, according to his 
own account, visited Lyons to confer with the author. In this passage, however, he is evidently independent of Spon, 
and it does not occur to him to identify his temples with the Erechtheum described by the latter. There is also no 
indication here that he is using Venetian reports or plans. See also Laborde, Athénes, I, p. 108. 


530 THE ERECHTHEUM 


dant at the Propylaea, and proceeded thence ‘‘alla sommita del Castello,’ which was ap- 
parently at the east end, not far from the modern Belvedere.» On the way they passed a 
temple with a vestibule having in place of columns four female statues “dagli Architetti 
denominate Cariate,’’ — an identification in which Magni stands alone among his contem- 
poraries. Not far distant was ‘‘un’ altra fabbrica”’ with columns and walls which showed 
that it had been a small temple. This is probably the East Portico, which lay on the route 
of the travellers, rather than the North; but the language is ambiguous, and in any case 
conditions were such that Magni did not perceive that all the remains belonged to a single 
building. 

Even more vague and unsatisfactory is the information afforded by another document 
of this time, — the great painting now at Chartres, executed for Nointel, and showing the 
city and the Acropolis from a point on Lycabettus not far from the modern reservoir. The 
large scale enabled the artist to include considerable detail, but unfortunately the picture 
has suffered greatly from neglect, and in particular the part representing the Acropolis is 
so damaged that precise interpretation is difficult even before the original, while the excel- 
lent reproductions of Homolle and Omont ! are almost hopelessly obscure in their view of 
the Erechtheum. The North Portico is indeed fairly clear with its pediment and sloping 
roof still well-preserved, and the intercolumniations apparently already closed by a wall, 
though the projection from the main building is exaggerated. At the east end, however, 
difficulties arise. It is very hard to find any trace of the columns in the somewhat irregular 
mass to the left of the North Portico, although it may be that the artist is rendering the 
front somewhat as Pars saw it a century later. There is certainly no clear sign of the 
pediment. Beyond this it is impossible to go, though even if the painting were undamaged, 
it is doubtful if much more could be discovered, since the constructions along the north 
side must have masked a large part of the building as seen from Lycabettus. 

The next traveller to notice the Erechtheum, with a shrewd guess at its identity, was 
Sir Francis Vernon (II), who was in Athens in 1675 and in his letter from Smyrna, dated 
January 10, 1676, mentions an Ionic temple on the Acropolis ‘‘whether of Pandrosus, or of 
whom, I cannot tell.”’ The dimensions (67 X 38 ft.) show that this building is the Erech- 
theum, but Vernon’s brevity and vagueness indicate that he had not given to it the pains 
he bestowed on the Parthenon and the Odeum of Herodes Atticus. 

Shortly after Vernon’s letter was written his former companions, Spon and Wheler, 
reached Athens, and it is in Spon’s narrative (III), which is here, as usual, followed almost 
verbatim by Wheler (IV), that we first find this Ionic temple identified with the Erechtheum 
of Pausanias, and its position, size, and general characteristics indicated with some preci- 
sion. The travellers evidently passed from the Parthenon across the east end and then 
along the north side, for Spon was struck by the view over the city, and moreover from 
this side his ‘double temple” — that is the main building and the North Portico — 


* Homolle, B. C. H., XVIII, 1894, pp. 509-528, especially p. 527, pls. I-IV; Omont, Athénes, pl. XXX. 


HISTORY ddl 


would be easily visible. As has been said already, they could not see the salt spring in the 
interior on account of the absence of the owner of the house, but they were told that it was 
almost dry. Since they did not go into the building, Wheler’s statement that the larger 
temple was entered from the smaller may also be due to local information, unless it is his own 
conclusion from the difference in level between the East and North Porticoes. Thus far the 
account raises no difficulties, but what follows needs some discussion, for it has been sup- 
posed to complete the description of the building by a mention of the Porch of the Maidens, 
and the identification of the statues with the Charites of Socrates. This identification was 
apparently current in Athens a few years later, for it was adopted by some of the Venetians,! 
who seem to have been quite undisturbed by the fact that then, as at the time of Magni’s 
visit, four Maidens were visible; and it has been attributed to Spon by later writers,” 
although there is nothing in his words, except the mention of female statues in a wall amid 
ruins, to suggest the Erechtheum. Apart from the fact that it is hard to believe that, when 
Magni had seen four statues and recognized their architectural character, Spon, a much 
more careful observer, should have seen only three — his words “‘les trois Graces” prove 
that he saw no more, — and quite failed to detect their function,’ the place assigned to these 
remains is fatal to this interpretation: ‘‘De l’autre c6té du Temple de Minerve, ou A son 
Midy,” says Spon; “‘On the South-side of the Temple of Minerva,” says Wheler, who has 
already placed the Erechtheum ‘‘on the North-side of the Temple of Minerva.” The ‘‘Tem- 
ple of Minerva” in both Spon and Wheler always denotes the Parthenon, and these words 
alone suffice to remove the ‘‘Graces”’ from the Porch of the Maidens to the other side of the 
Acropolis. Nor can it be argued, with Von Duhn (l.c.) that the ‘‘Temple of Minerva” in 
this passage refers to the main building of the Erechtheum considered as the temple of the 
Polias. For since Spon thought the ruins might mark the site of the temple of the Polias 
and Pandrosus, he cannot have already identified the Erechtheum with that temple, and 
Wheler’s addition ‘‘but no remains of them are now to be seen”’ is quite unintelligible, if he 
had in mind either the Erechtheum or the Porch of the Maidens. The conclusion is practi- 
cally inevitable that, unless Spon and Wheler hopelessly confused their notes and recollec- 
tions, they did not see — or at any rate did not mention — the Porch of the Maidens, but 

1 The Graces appear, four in number, in the key to Verneda’s plan (V), but Fanelli (VIII) has reduced them to 
three. The latter is of little independent value owing to his confused mixture of Wheler and later Venetian sources. 


2 As for example, Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 353; Laborde, Athénes, II, p. 23 and note 2; Von Duhn, Arch. Zig., XXXVI, 
1878, p. 60 and note 13. 

3 In his attack on Spon (Lettres écrites sur une dissertation d’un Voyage de Gréce, publié par Mr. Spon, Médecin 
Antiquaire, p. 243) Guillet criticizes his failure to recognize that the “statue of Ceres” at Eleusis was a Caryatid; 
and Spon (Réponse a la critique publiée par M. Guillet, p. 139), in defending himself, can only cite Perrault’s Vitruvius 
for an example in the Louvre. Clearly neither disputant suspected the existence of ancient examples in Athens. It 
may be noted, however, that in the same reply (p. 311) Spon lists as numbers LV and LVI among Guillet’s numerous 
errors the statements that all other temples and altars had disappeared from the Acropolis and that no tradition could 
indicate their sites, and adds, ‘“‘Je luy ay pourtant fait connoistre, que celuy de Pandrose et celuy de la Victoire estoient 
encore sur pied, p. 137 et 160. T. 2.” The ‘‘quelques masures anciennes,”’ which were the possible remains of the 
temple of Pandrosus, seem to have assumed more definite form in the author’s memory under the stimulus of con- 
troversy. 


532 THE ERECHTHEUM 


did find to the south of the Parthenon some ruins in which were three draped female statues. 
There is nothing surprising in this, nor in the disappearance ‘of these particular remains 
after the destruction of the Parthenon.? 

The interval between the visit of Spon and Wheler and the capture of Athens by the 
Venetians in 1687 brought at least one change to the Erechtheum. In 1676 the powder 
magazine of the Acropolis was in the temple of Nike, where an underground vault had 
been excavated,? probably to lessen the danger from lightning, which had already caused 


Ficure 216. THE ACROPOLIS IN 1687: FROM THE PLAN BY VERNEDA 


the explosion of the earlier magazine in the Propylaea. When the temple was torn down to 
build a new bastion in front of the Propylaea, the powder was transferred to the North 
Portico of the Erechtheum, as is clear from Verneda’s plan and Fanelli’s text.* It is probable 
that the vault within the porch was constructed at this time, although, as has been said 
(p. 524), the possibility cannot be excluded that the vault is earlier and that its presence led 
to the choice of this place for the magazine. 

* It may be noted that Scrofani (Viaggio in Grecia, II, pp. 104, 105) thus understood Spon, and duly discovered 


south of the Parthenon the remains of the temple of Pandrosus in a ruined wall containing the central slab of the east 
frieze of the Parthenon, which he interpreted as showing the ceremony of the Arrephori. 


* For the temple of Nike as a powder magazine, see Spon, II, p. 139 (ed. 1678), Wheler, p. 358; for the subter- 
ranean vault, Ross, Die Akropolis von Athen; I, Tempel der Nike Apteros, p. 3. 


* Verneda’s plan (Fig. 216), ““N. Gran deposito di polvere.” Fanelli, Atene Aitica, p. 321, § 2 (App. A, VIII). 


ns others = et Bor |b 
I Ie Th ea ae ee eee 


he 


7 Ree i, 
Pee a ee a 


ali Ba Pal 
cr aT a ee 


HISTORY 533 


The transfer of the powder was quickly followed by the Venetian siege, which apparently 
did not leave the Erechtheum untouched. The explosion in the Parthenon, we are told, 
wrecked the neighboring houses beneath the falling walls and columns, and also caused a 
great fire which raged for two days to the consternation of the garrison, who not only saw 
their dwellings and supplies consumed, but were in constant fear lest the flames should 
spread to the principal magazine (i.e., the North Portico) and cause even greater destruc- 
tion.’ This danger was happily averted, but it must be more than a mere coincidence that 
neither in the Venetian descriptions of the antiquities nor in later writers do we find any 
reference to the house seen by Spon. Evidently it was too much damaged to attract the 
attention of the Venetians, or to seem worth repairing after the return of the Turks. While 
the North Portico continued to be used as a powder magazine, the rest of the building is 
always described as though a deserted ruin. 

If we turn to the contemporary sources— drawings, plans, and notices,2— it must 
be admitted that the direct evidence which they furnish as to the state of the Erechtheum 
is very scanty. The plans are small and the notices — they are too brief to be called 
descriptions — lack essential details. In spite of these defects, it is still possible to de- 
termine with considerable certainty the general appearance of the building by examining 
the relative prominence attributed to the several parts in these documents, which contain, 
directly or indirectly, the testimony of men who had themselves been in Athens and re- 
corded those things which had most impressed them. Conjectural restorations are far 
from their thoughts, and they make little or no allowance for later additions. Hence their 
omissions or inferences are often as significant as their direct statements. The agreements 
and divergencies in their theories may be easily seen from the table on page 535. 

All agree in giving the first place to the porticoes on the sides, which were regarded as 
independent buildings and usually identified with the two temples known from Pausanias. 
The North Portico, by reason of its size and excellent preservation, naturally received special 
attention, and since the interior could now be examined, at least by Venetian officers, the 
large beams of the ceiling, the beauty of the carving on the wall, and the size and decoration 
of the great door were all noted with admiration, while Locatelli (VII), whose account is 
otherwise negligible, is the first to mention the colored stones (i.e., glass beads) in the guil- 
loche of the capitals. In the Porch of the Maidens the four statues on the south were alone 
sufficiently conspicuous to receive special mention. The importance attributed to these 
porticoes and the complete misconception as to their real nature evidently arose from failure 
to detect modern alterations. The establishment of the magazine, if not the construction of 
the house, with the consequent closing of the intercolumniations in the North Portico, 

1 See the various contemporary accounts in Laborde, Athénes, I1, pp. 144, 146, 158, notes; Michaelis, Der Parthe- 
non, pp. 345-347; Z. bild. Kunst, XXTI, 1887, p. 373. The Erechtheum is not mentioned in these narratives, but it is 
possible that the rear figure on the east side of the Porch of the Maidens was overthrown at this time. It is never 


mentioned as in place, and was certainly missing in 1729; see below, p. 536. 
2 For an account of these sources, see Appendix B, I; and for the text of the descriptions, Appendix A, V—VIII. 


534 THE ERECHTHEUM 


must have already given it the appearance of a little temple which it bears in the drawings 
of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (PLares L~LIII; Fig. 222). There is no 
direct testimony for a similar closing of the Porch of the Maidens, but since only the four 
statues on the south side were visible, it is almost certain that the west side was walled up, 
and very probable that similar walls filled the other sides.! 

With the porticoes thus transformed into separate buildings, misunderstanding was in- 
evitably rendered easier by the ruined condition of the main building. Only the walls were 
standing according to De la Rue (VJ), and it is probable that the interior was already en- 
cumbered with rubbish, for although some of the plans show the western cross-wall and the 
door of the Porch of the Maidens, both are ignored in the descriptions, which contain 
merely a brief mention of the six columns at the east end, and the windows, two of 
which still retained perforated marble screens,” at the west. Indeed with the exception of 
De la Rue (VI), who followed Spon in finding here the large temple, current opinion was 
evidently somewhat in a quandary regarding the nature of this part of the building. It is 
generally nameless in the plans,’ but Verneda’s key (V) shows that he considered it an open 
court between the two temples, while the words “‘corte o scala”’ ¢ imply a belief on his part 
that a monumental flight of steps might have descended from the higher level at the east 
end. Even Fanelli’s (VIII) informant, who seems to have felt that the presence of windows 
implied a roof, could find no better explanation than a ‘‘salone spacioso.”” The Venetian 
evidence thus indicates that the Erechtheum in 1687 had much the same appearance as in 
Dalton’s drawings (PLaTE L, 1, 2) made over sixty years later. Obviously there had been 
a marked change since Spon’s visit, and we can hardly fall into serious error, if we attribute 
this change in great part to the damage wrought by the bombardment, explosion, and fire. 

In addition to their somewhat scanty information about the building, these documents 
afford an interesting glimpse of the development of antiquarian speculation in Athens. The 
two temples, anonymous hitherto, are now generally assigned to Poseidon or Erechtheus ° 
and to Athena Polias with whom, by a too narrow interpretation of ovvexjs in Pausanias, 
Pandrosus was united. De la Rue (VI) who, as we have seen, adopted Spon’s view as to the 
situation of the temples, shows that there were conflicting theories as to the proper nomen- 
clature, and in his unwillingness to decide simply states the alternative for each building, 

1 Locatelli (VII) shows that the four statues were on the south side (la facciata). Fanelli’s statement (VIII) 
that the three figures were in niches in the wall would be conclusive, if we could be sure that the wall was derived 
from any other source than Wheler, to whom the three (rather than four) figures are certainly due. 

® Fanelli (VIII) is the somewhat unreliable authority for these “gelosie.” It is, however, not impossible that the 
ancient ‘“‘transennae”’ had survived, and Ross (Arch. Aufs., I, p. 125, note 6) states that fragments of perforated mar- 


ble screens were found in excavations near the Erechtheum. The date of discovery is not given, but the note was 
added in 1855 to a letter written in 1837. 

3 San Felice calls it “Tempio di Minerva,” obviously because he has omitted the Porch of the Maidens altogether. 

* “Corte o scala”’ is the reading of the original; ‘corte e scala’ on Fanelli’s plate is probably an engraver’s 
error; and “corte o sala” in the Vienna manuscript is apparently the correction of a copyist who did not understand 
Verneda’s meaning. 

5 Von Duhn (Arch. Zig., XXXVI, 1878, p. 61) has pointed out that this temple owes its existence to a misinter- 
pretation of Bwpyés in Pausanias, which was taken in its later meaning of “temple” instead of “altar.” 


HISTORY 535 


leaving the Porch of the Maidens without a name. A similar diversity of opinion appears 
in the interpretation of the Maidens themselves. Undisturbed by the presence of four 
figures and perhaps misled by the passage in Spon already discussed, some found here the 
Charites of Socrates. Others, possessed of more recondite learning, saw in them the Hyacin- 
thides (Giacintides), or daughters of Erechtheus, Procris, Creusa, Oreithyia, and Chthonia, 
— names strangely modified by the Italian transcribers.!_ Since Suidas names six daughters, 
and indeed seems to limit the title Hyacinthides to the two, Pandora and Protogeneia, who 
sacrificed themselves for their country at Hyacinthus, the suspicion arises that those re- 
sponsible for this identification believed that there were originally six statues in the Porch. 


Whole Building Main Building North Portico Porch of the Maidens The Maidens 
Verneda. Corte o scala. R = Tempio S = Tempio di Four: Graces of 
Corte e scala. d’Ericteus. Minerva Poliade | Socrates. 
Corte o sala. (N = Gran de- e della ninfa 
posito di pol- Pandrosa. 
vere). 
San Felice. D = Tempio di E = Tempio di | Omitted on plan. 
Minerva Poliados.| Nettuno. 
Coronelli (Plan m = Tempio di 
of city). Ericteus. 
Coronelli and Tempio di Tempio di Mi- 
Manuscript (Plan Nettuno. nerva Poliados. 
of Acropolis). 
De la Rue. Tempio di Mi- Tempio di Net- | No name given. | Giacintides, Fig- 
nerva Poliados or | tuno or di Pan- lie d’Eristeo, Re 
Palazzo d’Eristeo. | drosa. d’Atene: Procris, 
Cerusa, Ectonia e 
Oritia. 
Locatelli (A) and Tempio di Tempio di Mi- Figlie d’Hericleo, 
Galleria di Mi- Nettuno. nerva Poliados. VI Ré degli Athe- 
nerva (B). niesi: (A) Prieris, 
Creusa, Hectha- 
nia, Octorichia; 
(B) Procri, Clau- 
sa, Zetonia, Or- 
thoritia. 
Fanelli. Salone. Tempio di Tempio di Mi- Three: Graces of 
Eretteo. nerva Poliade e Socrates. 
della Ninfa Pan- 
drosa. 


1 The Hyacinthides as daughters of Erechtheus appear only in Suidas, s.v. rapGévo. If Suidas was known in 
Athens at this time, it is also possible that some were acquainted with one of the forms of the scholium of Tzetzes to 
Aristophanes, Clouds, 773, according to which a@ya\yara trav rpiav Xapirww .. . joay bribe THs ’AOnvas eyyeyAuueva 
76 totxw. The identification of the Porch of the Maidens with the temple of the Polias would bring with it that of 
the statues with the Charites. Cf. Von Duhn, l.c., p. 60, and the references there cited. 


536 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Unfortunately there is no evidence as to the sources from which the Venetians drew. 
That they were dependent upon local guides may be regarded as certain, for Morosini’s 
officers, however well educated, are not likely to have possessed any special acquaintance 
with Athens.! We know that Jean Giraud, the English consul and friend of Spon, who 
had diligently studied the ancient monuments during his long residence, conducted the 
Countess of Kénigsmarck on her visit to the city,? and he doubtless performed the same 
service for others. The French capuchins, who later owned a copy of Spon’s work,’ may 
also have helped the visitors. The variations in nomenclature indicate that others also had 
begun to interest themselves in the remains of the past, and that in this respect there had 
been some improvement since the days of Nointel and Spon. This awakening, however, 
had no permanent effect, for there is no evidence of a serious local tradition in the writings 
of the next century. Their authors brought their learning with them and apparently re- 
ceived neither stimulus nor information from the residents. 


V. Tue ERECHTHEUM AS A RUIN 


Artsr the retreat of the Venetians, April 9, 1688, the Acropolis was once more occupied by 
a Turkish garrison, while the lower town, from which the Greeks had fled in terror to Salamis 
and the Morea, remained deserted until, in 1690, the Sultan granted a safe return to the 
fugitives.> It was long, however, before the city and its monuments again attracted the 
attention of travellers, and even longer before this attention produced any noteworthy con- 
tribution to our knowledge of the Erechtheum. 

The first visitors to remain any considerable time, the Abbé Michel Fourmont and his 
nephew Claude-Louis Fourmont, who made Athens their headquarters from April to 
September, 1729,° devoted themselves, as is well known, chiefly to copying inscriptions, 
with the result that the monuments occupy but a small space among their voluminous 
papers.’ So far as the Erechtheum is concerned we obtain only one bit of definite informa- 
tion: five of the Maidens were now visible, and the north statue on the east side had already 
disappeared. It is true that to the Fourmonts we owe the earliest known drawing of the 
Erechtheum (Fig. 217),* but it cannot be said to add to our knowledge. Their unique and 
almost incredible misconception, whereby the Porch of the Maidens became the projecting 

1 An examination of the Venetian descriptions of the antiquities shows clearly how little classical knowledge their 
authors possessed, and how dependent they were on others for their information. 

* Laborde, Athénes, II, pp. 278-279. 

* Paul Lucas, in Omont, Missions archéologiques frangaises en Orient, I, p. 335. 

* Laborde, Athénes, II, p. 253. 

5 Gregorovius, Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, I, p. 421, and note. 

® For the mission of the Abbés Sevin and Fourmont, see H. Omont, Missions archéologiques francaises en Orient, 
I, pp. 438 ff.; for the stay of Fourmont in Athens, I, pp. 537 ff.; II, pp. 1086-88, 1128-30. 

7 On the Fourmont papers, see App. B, II. 

§ The reproduction is from the copy of the original drawing inserted by C.-L. Fourmont in his narrative of the 


tour in Greece, Bibl. Nat., MSS, Nouv. acg. fr. 1892, fol. 86. For the mutilated original and for Fourmont’s 
methods of work, see App. B, II. 


HISTORY 537 


entrance in the main fagade, doubtless arose in great part from the difficulty of obtaining 
an unobstructed view of the building, and from superficial and hurried observation — for 
their visits to the Acropolis were certainly few — but it was aided and confirmed by the 
younger Fourmont’s habit of preparing his finished drawings from hasty and often very 
inadequate sketches, supplemented by a somewhat free use of his imagination in rendering 
details. 

Rather more may be gleaned from the narratives of Lord Sandwich (1738) and Richard 
Pococke (1740).' The exterior of the building was apparently still well preserved, inas- 


£ ewe soe ry 
Fines TEES TTR 
oe uae 


Figure 217. THE ERECHTHEUM: DRAWN IN 1729 BY C.-L. FOURMONT 


much as the only mark of ruin noted by the former (IX) was the absence of a roof. It may 
also be inferred that the intervals between the statues in the Porch of the Maidens were 
still closed by a wall, for it is improbable that an open portico would have been interpreted, 
even tentatively, as the dwelling of the youthful Arrephori. Pococke’s account (X) is that 
of a scholar, who formed his own opinions without much aid from local traditions. He 
seems to have been the first to perceive that the porticoes at the sides were not separate 
buildings, and, in his search for the ‘“‘double temple” of Pausanias, was thus led to his 
curious theory of the disappearance of a corresponding temple to the east. His drawing 


1 For a fuller account of the works of Sandwich and Pococke, see App. B, III. 


538 THE ERECHTHEUM 


and plan of the Erechtheum, though not free from grave inaccuracies and from conjectural 
restorations, were far in advance of anything that had yet been attempted, and with his 
brief but clear description conveyed to his contemporaries a not wholly inadequate idea 
of the building. 

While these descriptions and drawings naturally add something to the meagre narrative 
of Spon, they obviously fail to furnish a distinct picture of the building and its surroundings. 
For this we must turn to the drawings of Richard Dalton, who visited Athens in 1749 as 
the artist of Lord Charlemont and his friends.!_ His stay was apparently too short to permit 
minute study and measurements, yet his published drawings,’ though unpleasing, show 
careful observation and an evident striving after accuracy. Unfortunately he greatly 
diminished the value of his work by the conscientious elimination of Turkish surroundings 
and modern accretions. It is true that the ground level seems carefully preserved, and 
there is little, if any, restoration of what had already disappeared or was buried, though at 
times he probably drew what he supposed to be concealed behind walls or rubbish which 
his methods compelled him to omit.4 In spite of these defects, which can be corrected in 
great part from other sources, his two views of the Erechtheum (Puate L, 1, 2), since 
they are not only the first reliable representations of the building, but are also in some 
respects more useful than the works of his better known successors, deserve detailed 
examination. 

The first view, from the southeast (PLATE L, 1), shows the lower part of the building buried 
in the earth, which conceals the bases of the eastern columns and rises along the south side 
until it almost covers the podium and quite fills the interior of the Porch of the Maidens. 
The East Portico, except for the presence of the northern column and architrave now in the 
British Museum, and for an additional block of the cornice on the south side, has much the 
same appearance that it has had since the recent restoration (PLATE XX XIII, 1). The south 


1 A brief account of this tour is given by F. Hardy, Memoirs of the Political and Private Life of James Caulfield, 
Earl of Charlemont, I, pp. 19 ff. Unfortunately Lord Charlemont’s journal (Hardy, op. cit., 1, pp. xiv, 32,33), like Dalton’s 
sketch books, has disappeared. The party were off Aegina, November 23, 1749, and returned to Athens from Aulis on 
December 14, after visiting the Morea, Thebes, Corinth, and Euboea, but the time actually spent in Athens is not 
given (Hardy, op. cit., I, pp. 33, 34). 

2 After his return Dalton published in 1751-52, A Series of Engravings representing Views in Sicily, Greece, Asia 
Minor and Egypt, with 52 plates. The plates of Athens are dated April 12, 1751; the other Levantine plates in Febru- 
ary, 1752. In 1781 appeared A Series of Prints relating to the Manners, etc. of the present Inhabitants of Egypt, with 
25 plates, and in 1791 the two publications were combined in Antiquities and Views in Greece and Egypt. The two 
views of the Erechtheum are reproduced in J.-M., Atlas, pl. XXIX. Two other plates are devoted to architectural 
details. One gives the restored elevation of the southwest corner of the Porch of the Maidens; the other contains 
details from the orders of the East and North Porticoes. Both these plates were entirely superseded by Stuart’s 
publication. For Dalton’s life see Dictionary of National Biography, and Thieme-Becker, Kvnstler-Lexikon. 

’ Hardy, op. cit., I, p. 20, says: “It has been stated to me, that as an artist he was miserable, but exact and faith- 
ful.” This criticism seems justified by his published work. 

* This neglect of the surroundings is strikingly shown in the omission of the little mosque which then occupied 
the interior of the Parthenon. Other good examples are the engravings of the Tower of the Winds and the monument 
of Lysicrates, each of which is drawn as standing alone in an open plain. In the view of the Arch of Hadrian Mount 
Hymettus is missing from the background. 


HISTORY 539 


wall is complete below the epicranitis, except for a gap at the west end.! Of the epicranitis 
only one block next to the east anta and four blocks near the centre of the wall are in place. 
Dalton’s effort after precision in detail is shown in the marks of damage to individual stones, 
which in some places on the anta agree very fairly with what may now be seen (PLATE VI). 
Only the eastern end of the north wall appears, and here it is not possible to test the ac- 
curacy of the picture. Certainly no later artist saw so much standing, and when we recall 
how large a part of this wall had disappeared within the next fifty years, there is some 
ground for suspecting that we have here a restoration to conceal the remains of the house, 
which are so prominent in the drawings of Pars and Gell (Puate LI, 2; Figs. 219, 222). 
On the other hand Sandwich (IX) speaks as if both walls were standing, and we know that 
before the Greek Revolution this side of the building fell into ruin more rapidly than the 
others, so that the possibility must be granted that Dalton found the north wall fairly well 
preserved. So much of the west end as is visible in this drawing corresponds on the whole 
with the other view, which shows this portion of the building. The most striking discrep- 
ancy is in the return of the mouldings of the architrave block at the southwest corner ” 
along the south wall in the first view, although in both drawings the block itself extends, 
as it actually did, only to the centre of the anta. It is interesting to note that on the inside 
of the west architrave Dalton indicates that the moulding was on a separate slab, except 
in the case of the southern block, which was in fact a single stone. 

Turning to the second view (PLATE L, 2) we find the steps and part of the podium of the 
Porch of the Maidens covered with earth, which also wholly conceals the terrace wall of the 
Hecatompedon and fills the Pandroseum almost to the lintel of the door in the west wall. 
The west columns, windows, and architrave, except for a bit of moulding, are complete, the 
frieze extends from the north end to the middle of the fourth intercolumniation, and a 
considerable bit of cornice still remains. The North Portico is, of course, walled up, and 
there is no sign of roof or tympanum, although the latter was certainly in place. Here, as in 
his other drawing, Dalton reaches a noteworthy precision in some matters much neglected 
by his contemporaries. Above the moulded course at the base of the columns on the west 
wall the courses and jointing are correctly drawn, the relation between the courses of the 
south anta and the roof and podium of the Porch of the Maidens is accurately rendered, 
and even the chipped and broken edges of the anta are minutely and, to judge from present 
conditions, faithfully reproduced. 

It must be admitted, however, that along with these obvious merits Dalton’s work 
shows also very obvious defects and errors. For example, in the view from the west the egg 
moulding on the podium of the Porch of the Maidens is continued along the entire west 


1 It looks as though Dalton had enlarged this gap in order to show the top of the southern column at the west end. 
Fauvel’s elevation (see below, p. 547) shows only two blocks missing in the course below the epicranitis and one in the 
next lower course. 

2 For a discussion of this block, see Ch. I, pp. 70-73. 


540 THE ERECHTHEUM 


side, the lintel above the west door is neglected, all the jointing of the lower west wall 
is wrong, the courses in the pier at the southwest corner of the North Portico are entirely 
out of relation to those in the West Facade and finally the place of the small door in the 
Portico is filled by a plain wall.? 

This last error and very probably a goodly number of the other mistakes in this view 
can be easily understood by comparison with later drawings,” which show the angle between 
the west wall and the North Portico filled with ruined masonry which wholly concealed the 
door and rose above the base of the north anta of the wall. Dalton omitted all this as mod- 
ern and filled the gap to the best of his ability. The same disregard of existing conditions 
is probably responsible for a curious error in the other drawing (PLATE L, 1). There are 
twelve courses, including the epicranitis, visible in the southeast anta. If this is correct — 
and a mistake by the careful Dalton at so open a point is unlikely, —the earth at the base of 
the anta covered only the lower half of the orthostate, while at the Porch of the Maidens, 
since it reached to the top of the podium, it must have covered the whole orthostate and the 
course above (PLATE VI). Yet in the drawing the ground level is the same along the whole 
length of the wall, and in consequence at the Porch there are twelve courses exposed instead 
of only ten. Since the capital of the east anta of the Porch is correctly aligned with course 
6 of the wall, it follows that the two additional courses have crept in below that point. It 
is also noteworthy that below course 5 there are no marks of injury to the stones in the wall. 
If now we turn to Fauvel’s rough plan (Fig. 218), Gell’s drawings (Figs. 219, 220), and Dod- 
well’s colored plate (PLarr LII, 1), we find the entire south side, from the Porch of the 
Maidens almost to the southeast anta, masked by a modern wall, which on one of Gell’s 
drawings rises to course 6, though in view of his habitual negligence in such matters this 
coincidence has little evidential value.* It would seem probable that Dalton did not 
actually see the lower part of the south wall at all. He drew correctly the eastern anta and 
the western end with the Porch of the Maidens, and as the upper part of the wall was visible, 
he determined correctly the number of blocks in each course, the jointing, and the height 
of the Porch; but since he failed to note the increased depth of earth to the west, he carried 
his lowest course in the anta through to the top of the podium of the Porch, and divided 
his wall below course 6 accordingly. 

In spite of their defects, these drawings, however inadequate as a representation of the 
Krechtheum amid its Turkish surroundings, may be considered to give us a substantially 
accurate picture of the condition of the building itself in the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, and they therefore furnish a satisfactory point from which to trace its further vicissi- 
tudes. Until after the Greek Revolution the record is one of accelerated disintegration, 

1 For the correct and incorrect renderings in Dalton’s drawings compare Puats IV. 

? See, for example, the drawings of Stuart, Dodwell, and Gell (Puates LI, 1, LII, 1; Figs. 220, 221). 

§ It should be added that Stuart, who was in Athens not long after Dalton, omits this wall (PLars LI, 1). But 


Stuart, too, seems to have allowed himself some latitude in treating his surroundings, and his testimony cannot 
be considered conclusive against the existence of the wall in Dalton’s day. 


HISTORY 541 


which can be best followed in the series of contemporary drawings, supplemented by such 
additional information as can be gleaned from successive visitors. Unfortunately, these 
travellers, however learned and intelligent, seldom give very specific accounts of recent 
changes and generally tend to discuss the supposed original appearance of the building 
rather than to describe in minute detail the actual conditions. 

Although Dalton’s engravings were incomparably the best which had yet appeared, his 
work apparently attracted little attention. Various reasons may be assigned for this 
neglect — the absence of picturesque effects, deficiency in artistic skill, lack of a descriptive 
text, and especially the interest of lovers of the antique in a much more promising under- 
taking in the same region. Fifteen months after Dalton left Greece and a year before his 
book was ready, James Stuart and Nicolas Revett arrived in Athens for the long stay dur- 
ing which they laid the foundations for the modern study of Greek architecture.! In so 
short an interval, there had naturally been little change, and it is not surprising, therefore, 
to find that Stuart, in his drawing of the Erechtheum (Puate LI, 1),? agrees generally, so 
far as the preservation of the building is concerned, with Dalton. 

As a representation of the building in its Turkish setting Stuart’s work is obviously far 
superior to his predecessor’s, but from a distinctly archaeological standpoint it is much 
less satisfactory. There is no indication of courses or jointing except in the podium of 
the Porch of the Maidens, the architrave of the west entablature, and, curiously enough, 
the pilaster behind the first engaged column as seen through the intercolumniation.? The 
space below the windows is too high, the height and slimness of the columns and of the Maid- 
ens are exaggerated, and both frieze and cornice at the west end are, by a strange error, 
carried much too far to the south.‘ As a result the drawing is less correct in its general 
effect than Dalton’s clumsier work. On the other hand there is little or no suppression of 
the modern surroundings as such, even though there may be some freedom in treating 
them; if anything they are overemphazised by the groupsof Turkish officials and other 
persons with which Stuart loved to embellish his pictures. The level at which the two 
Turks are placed in the Porch of the Maidens accords with the rubbish-filled condition 
shown in Dalton’s drawing and described by Stuart in his text (App. A, XII), but to the 
east the ground level is distinctly lower, and, as we have just seen, it is not improbable 


1 On Stuart and Revett’s work, see App. B, IV. 

2 The illustration is from the original water color in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 
and is here reproduced by the courteous permission of the Council. On the set of drawings by Stuart, see C. H. 
Townsend, ‘The Royal Institute Library and some of its Contents,’ Journal R. I. B. A., XTX, 1912, p. 439. The 
Library also contains four sheets of diagrams and full notes by Stuart for constructing the volutes of the capitals of 
both East and North Porticoes. They are in a volume marked ‘Sketches by Stuart and others, Miscellaneous 9,” 
and were given to the Institute, August 11, 1862, by Joseph Woods, the editor of Vol. IV of the Antiquities of Athens. 
Their only value now is for the light they throw on Stuart’s (or Revett’s) methods of work. 

3 In the engraving, Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. Il, pl. II, three horizontal courses are marked below the 
windows, but these lines are lacking in the drawing. 

4 Dalton, Pars (PLate LI, 2), and Fauvel (Bibl. Nat., Estampes, Gb. 15, a, fol. 14) agree that the frieze extended 
only a short distance beyond the third column from the north, the cornice only a little beyond the second. 


542 THE ERECHTHEUM 


that here a modern wall has been omitted.! At the northwest angle a mass of masonry con- 
ceals the small door in the North Portico, and here too it is possible to detect the ordering 
hand of the artist in the regularity given to this mass, which in later drawings is notably 
irregular. The earth in the Pandroseum also is suspiciously level and well arranged. That 
it had risen somewhat since Dalton’s time may be inferred from the omission of the door 
in the west wall, both here and also in the elevation and section,’ unless in these latter 
plates the omission implies that the door was thought to be a late addition. It is not men- 
tioned in the text. 

The great value of the other drawings by Stuart and Revett — the latter was chiefly 
responsible for the architectural portion — for the restoration of those parts of the Erech- 
theum which have since been seriously damaged or destroyed, as for example the West Fagade 
with its windows, has already been made clear in the earlier chapters, and need not be 
dwelt upon here. Since, however, all present a perfectly uninjured building, they throw 
little or no light on the actual conditions, with which alone we are at present concerned. Nor 
does Stuart’s text (XII) add anything material on this point, except the specific statement 
that traces of the cross-walls remained at their junction with the side walls. 

The next visitor to study and draw the monuments of Athens was the young French 
architect, Julian-David Le Roy,’ who arrived in that city in February, 1755, about a year 
after Revett’s departure. His stay in Greece lasted only about three months and included 
a trip to Sparta, so that he had little time for minute observation, although he had free 
permission to take measurements and even to use ladders and scaffolding. Unfortunately 
Le Roy’s undoubted skill as a draughtsman, to be expected in a pensionnaire of the French 
Academy in Rome, was accompanied by a most lamentable indifference to accurate ob- 
servation, and in spite of the beauty of many of the plates in his great work, Les ruines des 
plus beaux monuments de la Gréce, the contribution to a correct knowledge and apprecia- 
tion of those monuments was negligible. So far as the Erechtheum is concerned, the diver- 
gencies from Dalton and Stuart can be set down to the free hand of the artist and need no 
discussion here. The drawing (PLATE L, 3), however, does convey — doubtless correctly 
— a vivid impression of the neglect and ruin into which the building had fallen, and in all 
his drawings it was this lively rendering of the general effect that was sought by the artist 
rather than accuracy in detail.‘ 


1 It is perhaps significant that there is no elevation of the south wall among Stuart’s plates. Stuart certainly 
aimed to reproduce faithfully what he saw, but a study of his drawings fails to confirm the statement of Woods 
that they were ‘“‘executed with great care and attention, to make them facsimile representations of the places repre- 
sented, without any endeavour to improve them by attempts at picturesque effects” (Stuart and Revett, IV, Preface, 
p. xxi). Stuart’s accuracy is called in question more than once by Dodwell; see especially, Tour, I, p. 292. 

* Stuart and Revett, II, Ch. I, pls. XII, XIII. This elevation of the west wall was not drawn by Stuart but 
prepared from his notes and sketches by William Newton. It is not likely, however, that the door would have been 
omitted by the editor had it appeared in his sources. Joseph Woods, Letters of an Architect, II, p. 256, interpreted 
the omission as showing that Stuart considered the door modern. 

3 On Le Roy and his work, see App. B, V. 

* For Le Roy’s theory of the value of minute measurements see his Observations sur les édifices des anciens peuples, 
pp. 6 ff., 11 ff. 


HISTORY 543 


The interest in Greek art awakened by the success of Stuart and Revett, and the desire 
to complete the work which had been interrupted by their hasty departure from Athens, 
led the Society of Dilettanti to direct that its expedition ! to Asia Minor should visit Athens 
on the homeward journey. 


Accordingly, after the explorations which produced the first volume of The A ntiquities of 
Tonia, the party consisting of Chandler, Revett, and Pars arrived in Athens, August 31, 
1765, and remained there until June 11, 1766.2. Undoubtedly the most important con- 
tribution to our knowledge of the Erechtheum secured by this stay was Chandler’s 
discovery of the stone containing the report of the Commission of 409 B.c.2 His account 
of the temple ‘ has a certain historical importance, since it contains an identification of 
the several parts of the building, which remained practically unchallenged until the publi- 
cation of Wilkins’s Atheniensia in 1816.° According to this theory the building was a triple 
temple; the East Cella was sacred to Erechtheus, and contained the @4Xacca; the central 
chamber was the shrine of Athena Polias, to which the west room was a pronaos and the 
North Portico an entrance. The Porch of the Maidens was the Pandroseum, where grew 
the sacred olive. Although Chandler first discussed at some length, if not very success- 
fully, the classical passages relating to the Erechtheum, he says little about the actual 
appearance of the building (XIII). Pars, however, although chiefly occupied in prepar- 
ing with minute accuracy and under many difficulties his drawings of the frieze and metopes 
of the Parthenon, found time to make an important water-color of the Erechtheum from 
the northeast (PLATE LI, 2),° which replaced in the second volume of the Antiquities of 
Athens (Ch. II, pl. I) a missing drawing from the same side by Stuart. 


1! On this expedition, see Chandler, T'ravels in Asia Minor and Greece, I, pp. vii ff.; L. Cust and S. Colvin, History 
of the Society of Dilettanti, pp. 81 ff. The first result of the stay in Athens was Chandler's Inscriptiones Antiquae, 1774, 
in which the inscription on the Erechtheum occupied a prominent place (Pars I], No. 1). In 1775 and 1776 appeared 
the Travels in Asia Minor and Greece in two quarto volumes. The text was not materially changed in the smaller 
editions which quickly followed. A French translation by Servois and Barbié Du Bocage with additional notes, partly 
furnished by Fauvel, was published in 1806, but the new notes on the Erechtheum (Vol. II, p. 545) add nothing of 
importance. Revett did not always approve of Chandler’s text and in his copy of the first edition, now in the British 
Museum, corrected his companion’s slips. Later these corrections were utilized in a “new edition with corrections and 
remarks by Nicholas Revett,” which appeared in 1825. 

2 Chandler, op. cit., pp. 18, 216; Cust and Colvin, op. cit., pp. 88-89. 

3 On this inscription, see Chandler, op. cit., I, pp. 57 ff. (App. A, XIII), and above, Ch. IV, pp. 283 ff. 

4 Chandler, op. cit., II, pp. 52 ff. 

5 According to Wilkins (Atheniensia, pp. 130, 141 ff.), the Erechtheum was a double and not a triple temple. 
The whole building was called the Erechtheum. The East Cella was the temple of Athena Polias, while the central 
and west rooms together formed the Pandroseum, which had its chief entrance from the north. This view had been 
briefly enunciated in 1814 by E. D. Clarke (Travels, III, p. 499 = App. A, XV), and it may have originated with him. 
It is probable, however, that he derived it from his friend Wilkins (cf. App. A, XV, p. 597, note 1), who had made a 
special study of the Erechtheum, while nothing in Clarke’s narrative shows more than a very cursory examination 
of the building. The new theory was promptly adopted by Inwood, Kinnard (Stuart and Revett?, p. 59, note 6), and 
Leake in both editions of his Topography of Athens. It also continued popular during the first half of the nineteenth 
century in spite of much destructive criticism, and was accepted in substance, though with not unimportant modifi- 
cations in details, by, among others, Raoul-Rochette (Journal des Savants, 1851, pp. 31 ff.), Tétaz (R. Arch., VII, 
1851, pp. 81 ff.), and Beulé (II, pp. 282 ff.). 

§ This reproduction of the original drawing in the Print Room of the British Museum is published by the kind 
permission of the Museum authorities. 


044 THE ERECHTHEUM 


While most of the artists of this period selected for their drawings the best preserved 
parts of the building, especially the unique Porch of the Maidens and the West Fagade with 
its windows, Pars seems to have deliberately chosen a point of view from which the ruin 
should be most conspicuous. A Turkish wall on the left masks the lower part of the east 
front and of the south wall; the northeast anta conceals the roof of the Porch of the Maid- 
ens; and the north side is chiefly occupied by the remains of the Turkish house.’ But if 
much is thus hidden, what is visible is most carefully rendered, and shows how far the 
damage had progressed in the seventeen years since Dalton’s visit. The cornice has dis- 
appeared from the eastern entablature, and a large part of the north wall between the anta 
and the North Portico has fallen. The artist’s attention to details appears in the careful — 
and under the conditions surprisingly correct — rendering of the dowel cuttings in the east 
frieze, of the broken surfaces in the architrave,? and of the traces left on the south wall by the 
eastern cross-wall. The significance of the rough mass, apparently brick, above the south 
wall at this point is uncertain. It may be part of some Turkish building outside, for it is 
scarcely likely that there was any late masonry topping the south wall. At least there is 
no trace of anything of the sort in the other drawings. 

Chandler’s expedition found no immediate successors, and during the remainder of the 
eighteenth century the western visitors to Athens were generally men attracted thither by 
their interest in Greek history and art, but with neither time nor inclination for prolonged 
study of the monuments. So far as the Erechtheum is concerned their writings add little 
to our information, while their drawings, when they existed, remained unpublished and 
are now for the most part lost.’ 

There is, however, one exception to this group of somewhat hurried and superficial 
travellers. Louis-Frangois-Sebastian Fauvel spent a great part of his long life in Athens; 
at first as one of the assistants employed by the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier to collect ma- 
terial for his Voyage prttoresque en Gréce and antiquities for his museum, then as private 
citizen, and after 1803 as vice-consul of France, until finally in his old age the Greek Revolu- 
tion, with which he had little sympathy, caused his transfer to Smyrna.‘ Artist, collector, 
excavator, friend and guide of European visitors, probably no man of his time knew so 
well the Athenian monuments, but neither by temperament nor by education was he fitted 
to present this knowledge in a systematic form.’ Apart from a few letters describing minor 

1 These modern walls can also be traced in Fauvel’s rough plan (Fig. 218). 

* For the testimony of this drawing concerning the identity of the architrave blocks in the British Museum, see 
above, Ch. I, p. 54. 

* The writings and drawings of this period are catalogued and their references to the Erechtheum noted in Ap- 
pendix C, Chronological Bibliography. Apart from Fauvel none made any important contribution to the study of 
the building. 

* On Fauvel’s life see the excellent biography by Ph.-E. Legrand, R. Arch., XXX, 1897, pp. 41 ff., 185 ff., 385 ff.; 
XXXI, pp. 94 ff., 185 ff. This work is an indispensable guide through the labyrinth of Fauvel’s papers. 

* On Fauvel’s education and temperament, see Legrand, R. Arch., XX XI, 1897, pp. 195-196; on his dependence 


on translations, ibid., p. 100. He admitted in 1789 that he did not understand the Greek inscriptions he copied, ibid., 
XXX, 1897, p. 60. 


HISTORY 545 


discoveries in and about Athens, which were published in Millin’s Magasin encyclopédique,' 
the results of his labors can be gathered only from occasional references in the works of 
others,” and from the mass of correspondence and of chaotic notes and drawings preserved 
in the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris.? 

There is little here about the Erechtheum as a building, for Fauvel’s references to it are, 
for the most part, from the time when he was in Choiseul’s employ and chiefly occupied in 
making casts and collecting antiquities.‘ From his letters it appears that in 1787 he dis- 
covered the pavement in the interior and determined its level below the East Portico, 
although it was not until his return in 1788 that he recognized its Christian origin— a 
recognition which seems to have passed unnoticed, since, as has been pointed out (p. 493), 
it is not until after the Greek Revolution that we find further references to Christian altera- 
tions.” In January, 1789, we find him once more digging in the main building, and clearing 
the Porch of the Maidens sufficiently to discover the entrance on the east side and the steps 
leading down into the Prostomiaion.® This discovery, too, remained unpublished, with the 
result that it is usually credited to Lusieri, who again cleared the Porch about 1802.7 

Something more may be gleaned from the preserved drawings. Among these is the 
rough plan of the Acropolis (Fig. 218),’ which has already been cited as a witness to the 
late walls about the Erechtheum. It is obviously the “brouillon” that Fauvel calls it, and 
taken by itself needs little notice. Its importance lies ‘in its attempt to map the groups of 
Turkish houses and the network of narrow lanes which then covered the Acropolis and were 
generally omitted from the plans showing the ancient remains. It thus confirms and in- 
terprets contemporary drawings and descriptions, though its crude and sketchy character 
makes its unsupported testimony of little value.’ 


1 For these papers see the index to the Magasin encyclopédique, s. v. ‘Fauvel.’ In 1802, VIII® Année, T. II, pp. 
237 ff., appeared an account of Fauvel’s work in Greece, condensed from a paper presented by him to the Institut 
National. For the Erechtheum it adds nothing to what may. be learned from his letters and notes. 

2 For example, in the notes to the French translation of Chandler (see above, p. 543, note 1) and in Legrand, 
Gal. ant., partly reprinted in App. A, XIV, 12. 

3 Fauvel’s papers are in the Département des Manuscrits, Supplément grec, 560; Fonds francais, 22870-22878 
(the last volume contains only drawings by Fourmont); Nowvelles acquisitions frangaises, 7558. Extracts from this 
volume, which contains letters to Choiseul, have been published by Omont, B. Soc. Ant. Fr., Sér. 6, 1900, pp. 240 ff. 
These letters were not known to Legrand. The drawings fill four volumes in the Département des Estampes, G b. 
15-15, c. There are a few maps and plans in the Département des Cartes, C, 2238, and also a plaster model of Athens. 

4 On this side of Fauvel’s activities so far as it concerns the Erechtheum, see App. B, VI. 

5 For the references to the pavement, see App. A, XIV, 4, 5. It is perhaps significant of the influences under which 
Fauvel worked, that his exploration of the interior of the Erechtheum was not due to Choiseul, but to a letter of his 
old companion, Foucherot (App. A, XIV, 2), and that Choiseul’s only response to the news, so far as appears, was a 
suggestion that Fauvel should secure, if possible, the inscriptions which had come to light (App. A, XIV, 6). 

6 See App. A, XIV, 8, 18. 

7 Wilkins, Atheniensia, p. 129, note, ‘During the time I resided in Athens (i.e., 1802), Lord Elgin excavated this 
portico, and discovered several steps leading down to a door-way in the south wall of the Pandroseum.” Cf, also 
Kinnard in Stuart and Revett?, II, p. 71, note. Morritt, who received much information from Fauvel, writes, in a 
letter of 1795: “There is a little staircase descending into the temple through the shrine of Pandrosos”’ (Letters of 
John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby, London, 1914, p. 175). 8 Département des Estampes, G b. 15, b, fol. 3. 

9 This plan seems to have been made in 1787, for the sheet on which it is drawn contains also rough outlines of 
an Ionic base in the Propylaea and of a cast from the metope of Sciron on the “Theseum” with directions for mount- 
ing. Now we know from Fauvel’s letter of February 20, 1787 (App. A, XIV, 4), that he was then about to clear and 


546 THE ERECHTHEUM 


More directly concerned with the Erechtheum, and the result of much more serious 
effort, is the series of drawings belonging apparently to the excavations of January, 1789. 
These include a careful plan of the whole building,! measured drawings of the Porch of the 


Figure 218. ROUGH PLAN OF THE ACROPOLIS IN 1787: FAUVEL 


Maidens,’ and interior elevations of the north, south, and west walls. Neither the plan nor 
the drawings convey any material information, since they give only the Greek remains, 


measure the bases of the Ionic columns in the Propylaea, and among the casts shipped from Athens in September of 
that year was one of the metope of Sciron: see Nouv. acg. fr., 7558, fol. 3 = Omont, l.c., p. 243: “3. Une métope du 
temple de Thesée, ce héros précipitant Ciron dans la Mer.” 

1 The plan is in the Département des Estampes, G b. 15, a, fol. 16, and bears the legend in Fauvel’s writing, ‘Tem- 
ple d’Erectée mesurée par Fauvel in Je™ 1789, aprés avoir fait fouiller par tout.” Legrand, R. Arch., XXX, 1897, p. 62, 
note 1, says this plan is dated in September, 1789. He also points out that Fauvel wrote Choiseul from Alexandria, 
September 7, 1789 (MSS, Fonds fr., 22871, fol. 9), and that, according to his own statement, he was in Cairo on Octo- 
ber 6 (abid., 22877, part 2, fol. 10). Legrand adds, ‘‘l’une de ces dates est sans doute inexacte.”” This assumption is 
unnecessary. The abbreviation, which Legrand reads 7° (Septembre), can as easily be read Je°* (Janvier). Fauvel’s J 
and 7 are very much alike and in his poor writing er and re are practically indistinguishable. Almost the same sign 
appears in Fonds fr., 22873, fol. 173, where Fauvel has endorsed a letter of Choiseul ‘‘regu & Athénes le 14 Jet 1791.” 
As the letter was written December 19, 1791, there can be no question about the month, though 1791 is plainly a slip 
of the pen for 1792. In general Fauvel prefers 7>'e for Septembre, e.g., Fonds fr., 22871, fols. 9, 14; 22877, fols. 3, 8; 
Estampes, G b. 15, b, fol. 61. The date in January is, therefore, palaeographically possible, and furthermore accords 
with Fauvel’s known activity in the Erechtheum during that month. 

2 The measured drawings of the Porch of the Maidens are in Estampes, G b. 15, fol. 65; 15, a, fols. 12, 14, 15, 17. 
This last sheet is marked “‘piédestal des cariatides, mesuré le 15 Janvier 1789.” It is a careful profile in ink; at the 
bottom of the lowest step is the note “Je n’ai point vu cette marche,” which gives a hint as to the height of the earth 
about the Porch at that time. 

’ The interior elevations are in Estampes, G b. 15, a, fols. 13, 14. They are not dated, but their general character 
agrees with that of the other drawings; they are earlier than Lord Elgin’s operations, and at no other time do we 
hear of Fauvel giving special attention to the Erechtheum. 


HISTORY 547 


which are now more clearly visible than they were then. The elevations, however, are of 
some interest, since they are the first architectural drawings which attempt to show the 
“present state” of the walls, and furthermore help to fill the gap of thirty-five years be- 
tween Pars and Gell. They are small but carefully done and, considering Fauvel’s hasty 
methods,! rather surprisingly accurate. The north and south walls are drawn as complete 
with the architrave and frieze, but a heavy irregular line marks the boundary between the 
existing and restored portions. The normal number of courses in the walls and of blocks in 
the courses is correctly given, but variations in length or height at specific points are gener- 
ally neglected. The west elevation is less careful work. There is apparently no restoration. 
The courses in the lower wall are marked, but the blocks are not indicated.2 In the inter- 
columniations the windows are too long, and there are only two instead of three courses 
beneath them. In the entablature Fauvel agrees with Dalton and Pars, against Stuart, as 
to the preservation of the frieze and cornice. Comparison of these elevations with the 
earlier drawings shows that the building had on the whole suffered very little since the 
middle of the century. At the west there seems to have been no change. On the south wall 
the westernmost of the four blocks of the epicranitis drawn by Dalton had disappeared, and 
the gap at the west end (somewhat loosely given by Dalton) is defined as due to the loss of 
the block next to the anta in course 3, and of the two blocks in course 2 which partly 
rested on this stone. Since Fauvel carries the upper course of orthostates from the east 
anta to the door into the Porch of the Maidens, it is clear that by this time the two 
courses of ordinary height, which backed the orthostates on the inside (p. 48), had disap- 
peared. The north wall had lost a few blocks near the anta in courses 4 to 8 since it was 
drawn by Pars. In the four upper courses as a whole (excluding the anta) about as little 
was preserved as now; in courses 5 to 11 somewhat more seems to have been in place 
on the west side of the gap. So far as can be judged, it was only on this side that the build- 
ing was especially exposed to injury, and even here it was nut much used as a quarry. 

After 1789 Fauvel’s papers make no reference to any additional study of the Erech- 
theum. Yet he evidently kept in touch with the work of others, for on his plan of the 
Erechtheum are two later notes in pencil,* one marking the opening of the Turkish cistern 
in the North Portico, the other the small door from this Portico into the Pandroseum. This 
information may have come from Lord Elgin’s artists, who had permission to examine the 
interior of the powder magazine. It can hardly be earlier than their time. 

About 1799 or 1801 the Erechtheum was drawn by the French artist Michel Frangois 
Préaulx, or Préaux, but what has survived from his pencil has little evidential value, since 

1 On Fauvel as a draughtsman see the criticism of H. W. Williams, T’ravels in Italy, Greece, and the Ionian Islands, 
II, p. 335, which closes with the words, ‘‘It does not appear he can bring himself to enter into the details of accurate 
finishing.” Fauvel’s manuscripts and drawings are full of confirmatory evidence. 

2 Under the door in the west wall is written, “‘cette porte est faite de force.’ Cf. Fauvel in Legrand, Gal. ant., 
I, p. 76, quoted App. A, XIV, 13. 


3 The former note reads, “Ici une citerne moderne’’; the latter, “La est une petite porte antique.” The hand- 
writing resembles that of Fauvel’s later years. 


548 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Tarun of MINERVA PeLIAg. 


Figure 219. ‘“‘TEMPLE OF MINERVA POLIAS, ACROPOLIS, 1800”: GELL 


the artist allowed himself considerable freedom in his treatment, omitting some details and 
restoring others, thus producing a striking rather than accurate picture.t_ Nor does the 
water-color by Sir Robert Smirke (Piats LI, 3), made about 1803, add much to our know- 
ledge, for its point of view at the northwest is so chosen that the North Portico hides 
most of the main building, and indeed occupies the greater part of the field.” 

To the opening years of the nineteenth century also belong the somewhat rude 
sketches made by Sir William Gell (Figs. 219-222) ,? which, in spite of their very obvious 


1 Préaulx accompanied John Tweddell to Athens in 1799 (Remains of John Tweddell, pp. 248, 261, 267, etc.). The 
drawings executed for Tweddell disappeared with the rest of his collections, but others, made during this stay in 
Greece, were retained by the artist. Several of these were later engraved for E. D. Clarke, including one of the east 
front of the Erechtheum (Travels, Part II; Vol. III, opposite p. 498). The point of view is nearly north of the Portico, 
and little is shown except the six columns and the north anta. A little of the south wall is visible between the corner 
column and the anta, but the upper part of the wall has been omitted in order that the columns of the Parthenon may 
be shown in the background. The east frieze is in place and a block of the cornice, which had disappeared over thirty 
years before, has been added. In 1914 a Paris dealer had in his possession a large water-color of the west end of the 
Erechtheum from the northwest, signed by Préaulx, showing the same free treatment of details, especially in the render- 
ing of the mouldings of architrave and cornice. See also App. C, No. 24. 

2 On Smirke’s trip to Greece, see the memoir by his brother, Papers R.I.B.A., Session 1866-67, pp. 197-199. The 
exact date of his stay in Athens is not stated, but he was planning his tour in 1803, and his drawings were made be- 
fore Lord Elgin’s work had been carried very far, so 1803 is the probable year. He was on the Continent from 1802 
to 1805. Eleven ‘Architectural Views in Greece”’ by him are in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Archi- 
tects. The drawing of the Erechtheum is here reproduced by kind permission of the Council. 

3 On these drawings see App. B, VII; they were apparently made between 1800 and 1802. 


_—-- 


mat 
ee 


a i ates 


HISTORY 549 


“~ 


te of Pines Telge Aare nohe 


Figure 220. ‘‘PANDROSEUM AND TEMPLE OF MINERVA POLIAS, ACROPOLIS”’: GELL 


shortcomings, convey, on the whole, a fair idea of the actual condition of the Erech- 
theum before Lord Elgin’s agents began their work. On the evidence of these drawings 
the chief change in recent years had been the disappearance of the cornice and frieze from 
both east and west ends, except for two blocks of the frieze over the second and third col- 
umns from the north at the east end.' It is possible that the gaps in the north and south 
walls had been somewhat enlarged, but the drawings are too carelessly executed to be re- 
liable witnesses on such a point. The remains of the Turkish house were still conspicuous 
on the north side, there were traces of a wall between the eastern columns,” and a mass of 
ruined masonry or bricks filled the northeast corner of the Pandroseum, effectually con- 
cealing the small door in the North Portico. On the south the contrast with the earlier 
drawings is marked. In them the Porch of the Maidens is open and the south wall fully 
exposed to view. Here, as in Fauvel’s rough plan (Fig. 218) and Dodwell’s colored plate 

1 Tt is not easy to account for the removal of these large and heavy blocks from positions so difficult of access, 
especially as a block on the east end of the south wall was not disturbed. The unbroken condition of the stones 
makes it improbable that they were blown down by a gale, such as caused the fall of a metope from the Parthenon 
in 1788 (App. A, XIV, 8). Nor can this damage be laid to the charge of Lord Elgin’s agents, for their workmen did 
not even lower the block which rested in part on the northern architrave, but contented themselves with swinging 
it askew, in which position it remained until the restoration of 1907 (Fig. 232). 


2 This wall is also shown in a drawing by Basevi (1818) in Sir John Soane’s Museum; see App. C, No. 50. Its 
absence in the drawings of Dalton and Préaulx proves nothing. 


550 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Ficure 221. ‘‘WESTERN FRONTS OF THE TEMPLES OF ERECTHEUS, MINERVA POLIAS, AND 
PANDROSUS, ACROPOLIS.” GELL 


(PuatE LIT, 1), this side of the building is masked by a modern wall, which with the Porch 
at the west and a transverse wall at the east forms a rectangular enclosure entered from 
the south (Figs. 219, 220). In another drawing (Fig. 221) a rough wall closes the west side 
of the Porch of the Maidens. So far as the masking wall is concerned, we have seen reason 
to believe that it may have been deliberately omitted by Dalton and Stuart (p. 540). Such 
an explanation of the wall in the Porch of the Maidens runs counter to the express state- 
ment of Stuart, in the explanation of his plate, that the Disdar placed men in the Porch 
‘to watch our proceedings.’ This suggests that the wall, which in the seventeenth century 
had largely concealed the Maidens, by the middle of the eighteenth century had fallen into 
ruin. Yet it must have been once more restored, for its existence is directly affirmed by a 
companion of Choiseul-Gouffier, who visited Athens in August, 1784,! and is at least sug- 
gested in a drawing of about this time, or perhaps a little earlier.2 Two years later Choiseul 


1 [G. Martin], Voyage & Constantinople, p. 33: ‘Les Tures . . . ont méme bouché les intervalles qu’il y avait 
d'une cariatide 4 l’autre.” See App. C, No. 58. 

® The sketch shows merely the four figures on the south side without podium or architrave. The presence of a 
wall between them is indicated by the irregular broken outline given the figures and by a series of short horizontal 
lines at the sides resembling the beginnings of courses in a wall. The volume of drawings containing this sketch 
(p. 105), now in the Louvre, was made for Choiseul, and is attributed to Cassas, but it contains some work by other 


artists, and it is possible that the drawings from Athens are by Fauvel. See also App. B, VI, p. 609, note 5, and App. 
CuNo. 13. 


Pee ee ee a ee, oe. a 


HISTORY dol 


Ficure 222. “TEMPLE OF ERECTHEUS, ACROPOLIS.” GELL 


was ready to give twenty piastres to prevent rebuilding ‘‘the wall of the caryatids,” ! 
which had probably been damaged by Fauvel in making his cast of one of the Maidens. 
Apparently the offer availed nothing, for not only does the wall appear in Gell’s drawing, 
but its existence is directly affirmed by Morritt, Dodwell, and Hunt, who reported the re- 
moval of disfiguring accretions in 1801, — a fact which probably accounts for its absence 


in Gell’s other drawings.’ 
From the evidence thus far presented it is clear that, while the Erechtheum had suffered 


1 See App. A, XIV, 1. This liberality was probably due to Choiseul’s desire to secure one of the figures. 

2 Morritt, Letters of J. B.S. Morritt of Rokeby, p. 175, “they (i.e., the Maidens) are [1795] built up in a shabby 
rough wall”; Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 354, ‘‘ During my first visit to Athens [July, 1801], the Caryatides were nearly con- 
cealed by a modern wall”; Hunt to Lord Elgin, July 31, 1801 (Smith, J.H.S., XXXVI, 1916, p. 196; also App. A, XVI). 
The only conceivable reason for rebuilding the wall was to transform the Porch into a room, probably forming part 
of a house extending along the south side of the main building. In that case the plan must have been soon abandoned 
as unsatisfactory, for, as we have seen, Fauvel in 1789 cleared the interior sufficiently to determine the opening in 
the east podium and the flight of steps, at which time the Porch was obviously uninhabited. Moreover, the condition 
of the modern walls in both Gell’s and Dodwell’s drawings shows that they were falling into ruin, and no visitor refers 
to the employment of any part of the Erechtheum except the North Portico. Such a temporary use, however, is not 
surprising in view of Dodwell’s statement (op. cit., I, p. 358) that most of the houses on the Acropolis ‘‘are miserable 
huts for the few soldiers of the garrison, and as the stones are only united with mud and earth, instead of mortar, the 
walls are continually falling; and a heavy rain makes nearly as much havoc amongst the Athenian cottages, as fire 
or an earthquake in other countries.” Haller von Hallerstein (MSS, Strasbourg, Box I, Vol. 3, pp. 87 ff.) says that 
the wall between the caryatids was removed by Englishmen in 1810 (a slip of the pen for 1801?). 


552 THE ERECHTHEUM 


some damage since Dalton’s visit and was doubtless used occasionally as a convenient 
source for building material, the process of disintegration during the eighteenth century 
had been slow. There was certainly little new construction on the Acropolis, and for re- 
pairs mud-bricks and small stones were more needed than large marble blocks. The east 
wall of the Erechtheum and apparently the architrave and frieze of the side walls had 
disappeared with the construction of the church, and the interior had long been a complete 
ruin filled with rubbish; but, apart from the loss of the central part of the north wall and 
much of the upper entablature at the east and west ends, the exterior and especially the two 
side porticoes were in a very tolerable state of preservation. The rapid deterioration in 
the opening years of the nineteenth century received its first impulse from the agents of 
Lord Elgin and ended in the disasters of the Greek Revolution. 

There is no need to enter here upon a discussion of Lord Elgin’s work in Athens. It is 
clear now that it was no random collection of everything that could be secured, but rather 
a systematic and carefully considered undertaking designed to save for western EKurope 
the finest examples of Athenian art.!. Given the conditions prevailing in Greece, and the 
apparent impossibility of any material improvement,’ the removal to safety of so much in- 
valuable sculpture, however regrettable its absence from the Acropolis may now appear, 
was then easily defensible, and in fact has long since ceased to be generally censured. 
Had the undertaking been confined to removing what had already fallen or could be de- 
tached without material harm to the fabric, there would be little ground for complaint, 
since there can be no doubt that the sculptures of the Parthenon, for example, had suffered 
severely since Stuart’s day. Unfortunately no such limits were observed, and in the de- 
termination to obtain ‘‘examples in the actual object, of each thing, and architectural 
ornament,” * too little attention was given to the amount of damage caused in the process, 
and the Erechtheum in particular was grievously injured.‘ 

The artists and casters employed by Lord Elgin reached Athens in 1800, but were 
at first much hampered in their work and practically excluded from the Acropolis by the 
exactions of the Disdar, and it was not until the arrival of a special firman in July, 1801, 
that the Turkish authorities yielded and Lusieri and his assistants were able to draw, 
make casts, and collect specimens without molestation.» The Porch of the Maidens was 


1 The definitive history of the Elgin collection has been written by A. H. Smith, J.H.S., XXXVI, 1916, pp. 163- 
372. For the plan of the collection, see pp. 189, 207, 247 ff. The passages in the letters referring to the Erechtheum 
are collected below in Appendix A, XVI. 

2 J. C. Hobhouse (Journey through Albania, p. 347, note), who was in Athens in 1810, in a very temperate and 
impartial discussion of Lord Elgin’s conduct (he did not share the indignation of his companion, Byron) dismisses as 
out of the question the possibility of a successful Greek revolution. This view was also held at that time by Byron, 
Childe Harold, Canto II, note D. 

5 Elgin to Lusieri, December 26, 1801; Smith, op. cit., p. 207; App. A, XVI. 

* See Wilkins, Atheniensia, p. 144, note: ‘(Had the Erechtheum been suffered to remain untouched, his Lord- 
ship might have escaped all well-grounded censure.’ 

5 Volume IT of the Elgin drawings in the British Museum (Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities) con- 
tains seven finished drawings of the Erechtheum. They include a plan, east, west, and north elevations, the North 


HISTORY 553 


promptly cleared of disfiguring accretions, and for a time the hope was cherished that it 
might be possible to remove it bodily.2, Meanwhile ‘‘a precious fragment of the cornice”’ 
from the main building was secured and transported to Malta.’ It was not, however, until 
1803 that serious operations were begun. Early in that year the second Caryatid from the 
west on the south side, which had been found to be the best preserved figure, was taken 
out and a rough pillar erected in its place.‘ Soon after, the northern column of the East 
Portico, the capital of the northeast anta, and the two architrave blocks at this corner were 
added to the collection.® 

The damage thus caused doubtless seemed inconsiderable, but its effect on the general 
preservation of the building was deplorable. The Turks were not slow to follow the ex- 
ample thus presented. In 1805 Dodwell saw the south architrave of the West Facade taken 
down and placed over a door in the fortress,° while the condition of the walls only a few 
years later shows that they had become a favorite quarry, doubtless in part because of the 
discovery that iron and especially lead could be found in the clamps and dowels. The worst 
of the damage was later than 1805, for Dodwell, who lamented the work of the ‘‘dilap- 


Door, and two plates of architectural details. All are restorations, with free use of conjecture and, at least in the 
mouldings of the North Door, considerable neglect of accuracy in detail. All are beautifully executed but throw no 
light on the actual condition of the building at the time. Volume V, the working drawings, contains nothing from the 
Erechtheum. The casts of all the ornaments of the Erechtheum and of the head of a Caryatid were lost; Smith, 
op. cit., p. 236. 

1 Smith, op. cit., p. 196; App. A, XVI. This probably refers to the removal of the modern wall between the 
Maidens; cf. Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 354, “During my first visit to Athens, the Caryatides were nearly concealed by a 
modern wall the removal of which has very much improved the appearance of the monument, and was done by the 
dilapidators [Dodwell’s usual name for Lusieri and his assistants], not with any intention of benefitting this singular 
edifice, but merely to examine which was the most entire of the statues and to facilitate its removal.” 

2 On the wish to obtain the entire Porch and the final recognition that this was impossible, see Smith, op. cit., 
pp. 196, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, and App. A, XVI. 

3 This ‘cornice’? must be a block of the epicranitis. The fragment of cornice from the west end (Ch. I, p. 75) 
would hardly have called for special mention. In his letter of July 31, 1801, Hunt reported that a block of the cornice 
had been lowered (Smith, p. 196); on August 6, Lusieri hoped to secure a considerable piece of cornice (ibid., p. 198); 
on October 26, he reported that the “‘precious fragment” had been sawn (i.e., the back had been cut away to lighten 
the stone; ibid., p. 202); and at the end of May, 1802, part of the cornice of the Erechtheum was included in the ship- 
ment which the sloop-of-war Mutine took to Malta (ibid., p. 209). More of the ‘‘cornice”’ was shipped on the Braakel 
early in 1803 (ibid., p. 254). 

4 According to Dodwell (Tour, I, p. 353): “Future travellers will easily trace on the modern pilaster the letters 
EATINOZ EDOIEI, which probably records the maker’s name.” In 1834 Sir Grenville Temple (Travels in Greece and 
Turkey, I, p. 81) read on it the words “Quod non fecerunt Goti, fecerunt Scoti,” which were attributed to Lord 
Byron (cf. Childe Harold, Canto II, 12). Hobhouse (Journey through Albania, p. 345) puts this latter inscription 
“‘on the plaster wall, on the west side of the chapel,’’ but does not mention Byron as the author. 

’ For Fauvel’s account of these operations see App. A, XIV, 12. On April 27, 1803, Lusieri reported the acqui- 
sition of the Caryatid and the column from the East Portico, and the former had already been taken away by the 
Medusa (Smith, p. 256). The architrave had, of course, been removed earlier, and “parts of the cornice and architrave 
of the Erechtheum” appear in Lusieri’s list of objects shipped on the frigate Braakel, which was nearly ready to sail 
early in February (Smith, p. 254). There is no mention in the published letters of the acquisition of the coffer block 
from the ceiling of the North Portico (Ch. I, p. 89, note 5). ; 

6 Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 352. The Disdar, when Dodwell remonstrated, “pointed to the Parthenon! to the Cary- 
atid portico! and to the Erechtheion! and answered, with a singularly enraged tone of voice, ‘What right have you 
to complain? Where are now the marbles which were taken by your countrymen from the temples?’” Pomardi’s 
drawing of the Porch of the Maidens (op. cit., p. 356) was made after the removal of this block. Dodwell’s other views 
are earlier. On the recent discovery of this block, see Ch. I, p. 72, note 1. 


554 THE ERECHTHEUM 


idators” and the changes wrought since his first visit in 1801, says nothing about injuries 
to the walls except at the northeast corner.!| According to Hobhouse much of the destruc- 
tion took place during the short war between Turkey and Great Britain (1807-09), 
when we may suppose the fortifications of the Acropolis were strengthened, and lead and 
iron were in demand.? 

Whatever the causes and the successive stages may have been, there is unfortunately 
no doubt as to the havoc which was wrought in the fifteen years after 1803. It is enough to 
compare the drawings of Williams and Thiirmer, made in 1817 and 1819, with those of 
Pars and Gell to realize how appallingly rapid had been the ruin. Thirmer’s etching 
(PiaTE LIII, 2) ® in its clear rendering of detail and general accuracy gives the best idea of 
the state of the building just before the outbreak of the Greek Revolution. The engraving 
from Williams’s painting ‘ confirms the testimony of Thirmer as to the general appearance 
of what was standing, but is of little value for details, and is further marred by a curious 
confusion in the perspective of the north and south walls. We see that a great triangular 
gap now yawned in the centre of the south wall, extending through ten courses, while at 
both ends the wall was intact and at the east end the frieze was in place. On the north side 
earth covered the base of the anta and the lower courses of the wall, but the anta itself and 
the upper thirteen courses of the wall to within a few feet of the North Portico had wholly 
disappeared together with all of the Turkish house except a corner of the foundations.’ 
Only a small part of the Porch of the Maidens appears, and here the artist has evidently 
allowed himself a bit of restoration, since only the two eastern Maidens on the south could 
have been visible, while pillars of rough masonry had long filled the places of the rear figure 
on the eastern podium and of that removed by Lord Elgin. The door-posts, which Inwood 
found in 1819 on the threshold of the western cross-wall, are not shown by Thirmer, prob- 
ably because they did not rise above the mass of débris in the interior. 


1 Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 348: “The column at the north-east angle has been taken away by the dilapidators, while 
some of the wall of the cella has been thrown down with part of the architrave and frize, and the north-east pilaster.” 

2 Hobhouse, Journey through Albania, p. 343: ‘The walls of the cell, the whole of the south side of which was 
destroyed during the short war between England and Turkey, and now lies in heaps at the back of the columns and in 
the area of the Temple.’’ South must be an error for north, since the drawings show that it was the latter wall which 
had fallen. Wilkins, Atheniensia, p. 142: ‘The wall toward the north is nearly level with the ground; that facing 
the south exists to a considerable height.’”” The same mistake of south for north occurs in Leake, Topography of 
Athens’, p. 627, where “the southern column of the eastern portico” is said to have fallen. 

3 Joseph Thiirmer, Ansichten von Athen, Rome, 1823. The brief and unimportant text is in both French and 
German. The plates are not numbered, but the view of the Erechtheum is the fourth in the copy in the British 
Museum. 

4 H. W. Williams, Select Views in Greece, I. There are two plates of the Erechtheum, one the view from the 
north noted in the text; the other of the Porch of the Maidens and the south part of the West Fagade from the south- 
west. The latter is interesting as showing not only the Elgin pillar, but also the similar support which replaced the 
long missing figure on the east side. Like most of these engravings the views of the Erechtheum tend to sacrifice 
accuracy to picturesque effect. The original paintings are not catalogued among the works of Williams in Edinburgh. 

> The omission of the Turkish house by Williams certainly does not represent accurately conditions in 1817, for 
in the drawing of the North Portico from the north, made in 1818 by George Basevi and now in Sir John Soane’s 
Museum, the remains of the house are shown very much as they were seen by Gell and Smirke. Basevi’s sketch is 
from about the same point as Gell’s (Fig. 222), but is in every way much better. Unfortunately it is in pencil and now 
so faint that a successful reproduction is probably impossible. 


HISTORY 555 


At the west the changes, apart from the loss of the south architrave, were slight, and 
consequently this end still remained the favorite with artists. The drawings of Smirke 
(1803; Puare LI, 3), Dodwell (1805; Puare LII, 1), Williams (1817), Taylor (1818; 
Puate LII, 2), Page (1818; Puatre LII, 3), and Inwood (1819; Puare LIII, 1) are in es- 
sential agreement. The elevation of Inwood is the most detailed and probably the most 
accurate. It also brings out certain points not hitherto clearly shown. In the west face of 
the masonry, which occupies the northeast corner of the Pandroseum and conceals the 
small door into the North Portico, is an arched opening blocked with stones, through which, 
we are told, was the entrance to the powder magazine.! The original sloping roof of the 
North Portico had long ago disappeared, though a part at least of the tympanum remained 
in place. To protect the magazine more perfectly the Turks had covered the ceiling with 
earth held in place by a low parapet of brick or small stones. This construction is vaguely 
suggested by Le Roy (Puiars L, 3), somewhat more clearly indicated by Pars and Thiirmer 
(Puatss LI, 2, LIII, 2), and shown with perfect distinctness by Inwood. Carried further 
by Gouras during the Greek Revolution the process, as we shall see, proved fatal to the 
Portico. A unique feature of Inwood’s drawing is the representation of the east side of the 
Porch of the Maidens as seen from the west. Rough brick or stone pillars not only replaced 
the missing statue but were erected against the anta and behind the corner figure. They 
supported a low wall of small stones, five courses high, on which the architrave rested. In 
such an arrangement the open spaces were much narrowed and must have produced the 
effect of large windows.” 

One other drawing of this period deserves notice, since it furnishes the only known 
record of the appearance of the loft over the powder magazine in the North Portico. This 
is a large water-color made by C. R. Cockerell during one of his visits to Athens between 
1811 and 1814 (Fig. 223). A ladder gave access to a hole in the intercolumnar filling at the 
north end of the east side, and more light was admitted by another opening at the south 
end. In the drawing the covering of the vault reaches to the bottom of the lintel of the 
North Door, though somewhat later Inwood, Donaldson, and Wolfe found the consoles 
exposed.‘ It is probable that the concrete vault was covered by loose earth and rubbish, 

1 Inwood, ed. min., p. 4, text to pl. II, speaking of the small door in the North Portico says: “There is at present 
an entrance there into the modern powder magazine, but being concealed by the rough masonry built before it, as 
shown in pl. I, it is not clearly ascertained to have been part of the original design.” Cf. J. Woods, Letters of an 
Architect, II, p. 256: “There is no admission to the interior as the Turks break a hole in the wall when they want 
er, evidence of these drawings as to the condition of the building prior to the Revolution is confirmed, but not 
materially supplemented, by the elevations made in 1818 by Joseph Woods and R. H. Sharpe, now in the Department 
of Manuscripts of the British Museum, Add. 22153, fols. 45, 51-54. Cf. Add. 22152, fols. 10-12. On these draw- 
ings see App. C, No. 55. 

’ Published by Miss C. A. Hutton, J.H.S., XXIX, 1909, p. 55, pl. VII, and reproduced here by kind permission 
of the Council of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. 

4 See, for example, Inwood, ed. maj., Book XXIV, p. 112; T. L. Donaldson, Ancient Doorways, pl. XXIII, “the 


top of its ceiling (i.e., of the magazine) not reaching higher than the consoles, which were quite clear”; Wolfe, MSS 
in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects, see App. A, XVII. 


956 THE ERECHTHEUM 


which was later cleared away from this point. The height of the loft seems to have been 
between two and one-half and three metres, and since there were doubtless other openings 
which admitted light, it is easy to understand why the details of this Portico fill so much 
space in the notes and sketches of the architects who visited Athens between 1810 and 1820. 

The ruin of the Erechtheum reached its culmination during the Greek Revolution, and 
when the Turks finally left the Acropolis in 1833, the building seen by Dalton and Stuart 
had in great part disappeared. The earlier years of the war brought comparatively little 


Figure 223. THE LOFT IN THE NORTH PORTICO: COCKERELL 


injury. We are told that during the siege of the Acropolis by the Greeks in 1821-22 only 
a single shot struck the building, destroying a part of the southern window in the West 
Facade. The walls, however, suffered to an unknown, but probably considerable, extent 
from the search for lead.? Yet now there is for the first time some indication of a desire to 
preserve the monuments from further injury, for during the Greek occupation a plan was 
at least considered for transferring the powder from the North Portico to a new magazine,’ 


1 Kinnard, Stuart and Revett?, II, p. 60, note: ‘‘ One shot, the only one of which the effect is remarkable, struck 
the Erechtheum, but happily without inflicting any material injury.” Jbid., p. 74, note: “The upper part of the 
window and filling-in between the southwestern semi-columns has been shaken down since the war, probably by the 
only shot which is recorded to have struck the ancient Athenian architecture during the late siege.”” These statements 
were made on the authority of Waddington, who was in Athens in 1825. 

2 Gropius to Blaquiere, April 25, 1824: “The same thing [i.e., destruction of the walls to obtain lead] has oc- 
curred to the temple of Minerva Polias and Erechtheus, though in a less degree,” i.e., than to the Parthenon (Bla- 
quiere, Narrative of a Second Visit to Greece, I, p. 157). 

8 Gropius to Blaquiere, J.c.: ““We have not as yet been able to get the powder removed from the old magazine 
established by the Turks, which is, as you know, in the fine vestibule of the Temple of Erechtheus. The matter is 


HISTORY 557 


though it is doubtful whether the removal was actually carried out.!. There is naturally 
very little mention of the monuments during these troubled years, and no drawing of the 
Erechtheum. Few travellers came to Greece — or at any rate to Athens — except the Phil- 
hellenes, who had little time, even when they had the inclination, to describe antiquities. 
There is a brief account of a visit to the Acropolis in 1824 by Edward Blaquiere, a letter of 
Gropius, the Austrian Consul, on the condition of the monuments in 1824, and two de- 
scriptions of the Erechtheum in 1825 by Prokesch von Osten, but none of these adds any- 
thing material to what may be gathered from earlier sources.2 

On June 28, 1826, the Turkish army under Reshid Pasha appeared before Athens, and 
on August 14 the lower town was stormed and the defenders driven into the Acropolis, 
where they held out until June 5, 1827.3 During this siege all the buildings suffered from 
the fire of the Turkish batteries on the Museum Hill and the Hill of the Nymphs, but the 
effect on the Erechtheum was peculiarly disastrous. The Propylaea and the Parthenon 
were chipped and battered, but the Erechtheum was almost destroyed.‘ 

The bombardment did no material damage to the East Portico, and if we may judge 
from the present condition of the stones, the north and south walls suffered less from the 
Turkish cannon than from the garrison’s search for lead. This, however, sufficed to level 
both walls almost to the ground, though since they were torn rather than battered down, 


decided on, but money to construct the new magazine is wanting. I need not say how anxious the society is to rescue 
this master-piece of art from the total ruin with which it is hourly threatened.” Two years later the powder was 
still there; Gropius to Fauvel, March 13/25, 1826: “Le vestibule du temple de Minerve Polias sera sauvé du danger 
de sauter un jour dans l’air; on va construire sans délai une autre poudriére en chateau”’ (Bibl. Nat., MSS, Fonds fr. 
22874, fols. 220-221). 

1 Pittakis (Ed. ’Apx., 1854, p. 1163, Nos. 2239-40) says that at the time of the second siege (1826-27) the powder 
was still in the North Portico, and that for this reason the Turkish fire was directed against it. On the other hand 
Garston (Greece Revisited in 1840, I, p. 126) certainly believed that the powder had been removed, while Ross, who 
was on the Acropolis in 1832, clearly heard nothing of the powder magazine, since he attributes the bombardment to 
Turkish knowledge that Gouras’s family were in the building (Erinnerungen und Mittheilungen aus Griechenland, 
p. 157, note). It is certain that no explosion followed the collapse of the Portico, but it is not easy to see why the 
garret was used by the women as a refuge, if the safer vault below, which was but little damaged by the fall of the 
roof, was unoccupied. It may be added that the new magazine must have been prepared in three months, between 
March 25 (see preceding note) and June 28, when the Turkish attack on Athens began. The time seems very short. 

2 Edward Blaquiere, Narrative of a Second Visit to Greece, I, p. 95. Letter of Gropius, ibid., I, p. 157 (for the 
references to the Erechtheum, see above, p. 556, note 3). Prokesch von Osten, Denkwiirdigkeiten, II, pp. 409 ff., 
646f. His letters were written in May or June, and August, 1825, but his book was not published until 1836, and 
the original text may have undergone some revision. Except for a description of the interior of the North Portico 
as seen from the loft above the powder magazine (inaccessible to Dodwell), the first letter is little more than a free 
translation, condensed and rearranged, of the description by Dodwell, Tour, I, pp. 346-357. 

3 Finlay, History of Greece, V1, pp. 401, 482. 

4 The extent of the damage to the Erechtheum caused by the bombardment may be best ascertained by compar- 
ing the drawings made shortly before the Revolution with those made between 1833 and 1843 by Cole (Puate LIII, 3), 
Skene (Figs. 224-227), Hansen (Fig. 228), Rey (PLATE LIV, 2), and others. It is true that most of these drawings were 
made after the partial restoration in 1837 and 1838, but the extent of these repairs is well known (see below, pp. 561— 
566), and the changes due to them can be easily eliminated. It has not been thought necessary to give references to the 
several drawings for each detail mentioned in the text. The written descriptions of the Erechtheum after the siege, 
as, for example, those of Prokesch von Osten (Denkwiirdigkeiten, III, pp. 509f., dated July 17, 1827; Briefwechsel, 
pp. 305 f., dated August 21, 1827) mention only the principal injuries, dwelling especially on the fall of the North 
Portico and the damage to the West Facade and the Porch of the Maidens. They certainly do not suggest such a 
degree of ruin as is shown in Cole’s drawing. 


558 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the blocks were in general sufficiently well-preserved to make possible the later rebuilding.’ 
The western part of the temple, being the most exposed, suffered most. In the Porch of 
the Maidens the second statue from the east on the front was shot away, and its fall brought 
down the blocks of the architrave and roof which it had supported. On the west side of the 
Porch the capital of the pilaster was destroyed, as well as the north end of the architrave 
above it, and although the roof at this point escaped, there is reason to believe that part of 
the south wall above the roof fell or was torn down.? The West Facade certainly lost the 
northern and southern columns with all the intercolumnar wall, the windows, and the 
architrave, but strangely enough the two central columns seem to have remained standing.’ 

The worst fate, however, befell the North Portico, hitherto the best preserved portion 
of the building. On account of its apparent strength the loft above the Turkish vault was 
chosen as a safe refuge for the wife and family of Gouras, the Greek commander,‘ and to 
make the shelter securely bombproof additional earth and stones were heaped upon the 
roof. The precaution proved fatal, for when the northwest corner column was shaken by 
the enemy’s fire, the heavy weight on the roof caused the collapse of the entire western 
half, burying eleven persons in the ruins.° Apart from the fall of the roof the three western 
columns of the Portico were injured to a greater or less extent. The amount of damage 
may be estimated by examining the later drawings and photographs, made after the res- 


1 The testimony of Cole’s drawing (PLATE LIII, 3) is confirmed by the Report Gr. Comm., §§ 6, 17, and Semper’s 
statement of conditions in 1831: “‘Damals waren die Mauern der Cella an beiden Seiten bis auf die unterste 
Schicht iiber des Stufeneinfassung niedergerissen” (Kleine Schriften, p. 164 = Deutsches Kunstblatt, V1, 1855, 
p. 405). 

2 Cole’s drawing is not clear on this point, though the capital of the southwest anta is apparently missing. It 
is omitted in Metzger’s drawing made in 1832 (Thiersch, Hrechthewm, I, pl. III), but this evidence is untrust- 
worthy. Forchhammer (Zur Topographie von Athen, p. 16) wrote K. O. Muller on January 6, 1833, “‘an der Ecke 
iiber den Karyatiden fehlt die oberste Reihe der Plinthen und alles was darauf ruhte,” and in 1852 Pittakis stated 
(Report Gr. Comm., § 6) that the epicranitis at the corner and the stones below as far as the roof (4 ywrata éruxpaviris 
kal ai katrwbev rAivOor wExpL THs oTEYNS THs TpocTdcews) Were replaced in 1838 and secured with lead and iron. 

8 There is a conflict of testimony on this point, though the weight of evidence is in favor of the statement in 
the text. There is no doubt that the south column fell and that only a broken stump remained of the north column. 
Cole’s and Metzger’s drawings and the engraving in Wordsworth’s Greece, p. 148, show the two central columns un- 
injured, though without an architrave, and this evidence is confirmed by Leake (Topography of Athens, p. 627: “The 
bombardment of 1827 caused the fall . . . of a part of the western wall with two of its semi-columns”) and Pittakis 
(L’ancienne Athénes, p. 404, and in Hobhouse, Journey in Albania?, II, p. 448). On the other hand Rangabé (’E¢. 
’Apx., I, 1837, p. 13), in a summary of the work hitherto accomplished, says two columns were completely reérected 
(avnyépOnoav evredGs) and a third partly restored (éreoxevdo0n xara pépos), while Ross (Arch. Aufs., I, pp. 121 ff.) 
states explicitly that only one whole column and half of another remained. The stump of the northern column was 
never repaired. 

* Gouras himself was killed by a Turkish bullet, October 13, 1826. The North Portico fell about three months 
later (Finlay, History of Greece, VI, p. 403 and note). 

> This is the version given by Pittakis (L’ancienne Athénes, p. 403), Ross (Erinnerungen und Mittheilungen aus 
Griechenland p. 157, note, October 12, 1832), Giffard (A Short Visit to the Ionian Islands, Athens, and the Morea in 
1836, p. 161), and A. R. Rangabé (R. Arch., II, 1845, p. 321). On the other hand Prokesch von Osten (Denkwiir- 
digkeiten, III, p. 509, July 17, 1827; Briefwechsel, pp. 305, 306, August 21, 1827), Thiersch (Erechtheum, I, p. 85, 
January, 1832), Von Klenze (Aphoristische Bemerkungen, p. 460), and Sir Richard Church (British Museum, MSS, 
Add. 36563, Narrative of the War in Greece, I, fol. 159) attribute the disaster simply to the weight of the earth on the 
roof, which was saturated by the winter rains. Prokesch von Osten adds that the disaster occurred during the night. 
According to Ross and Thiersch, the bodies of the victims were still beneath the ruins as late as 1832. 


HISTORY 559 


toration by Pittakis in 1837.1 The corner column lost its capital and upper drum, which 
were not replaced until the restoration of 1902-03. The adjacent column on the east suf- 
fered very little and probably did not fall at all. The column south of the corner on the west 
side apparently lost its capital and upper drum, but both were replaced by Pittakis and the 
cracked drum held together by iron bands. The second drum shows no special marks of 
injury, but the third was so battered and cracked that it was necessary to strengthen it by 
vertical iron clamps. It is not likely that any part of these columns except the capitals and 
upper drums actually fell. The walls between the columns were left standing to a consider- 
able height, and since they protected the magazine, were doubtless solidly built in the lower 
part, whatever may have been the case above the vault; they, therefore, served to support 
all but the upper part of the columns.? It is also probable that in the fall of the roof the 
western console of the North Door was broken off.’ 

During the Turkish occupation which followed the surrender of the Greeks, little was 
done to protect the monuments and certainly nothing to repair or restore them, but the 
Erechtheum seems to have escaped any serious injury,‘ and the drawing of William Cole 
(PxaTE LITT, 3),' although not made until after the departure of the Turks, gives a vivid and 
doubtless substantially correct picture of the state to which the building had been reduced 
by the bombardment. The upper part of the side walls has fallen and the lower is buried 
under heaps of earth. Only the two central columns rise at the west end without architrave 
or intercolumnar wall. The two Maidens at the corners of the Porch still stand, but the 
roof is supported chiefly by rude pillars. Above the roof the south wall has disappeared 
except at the southwest corner. The upper part of the modern walls between the columns 
of the North Portico has happily fallen, but the centre of the Portico is still filled by the 
Turkish vault and the débris from the roof — a condition which is more clearly shown in 
the somewhat later drawings of Skene (Figs. 224-226) and Rey (Puats LIV, 2). The 


1 The drawings of Flandin (PLate LIV, 1), Skene (Figs. 224, 225), and Hansen (Fig. 228), when compared with 
later photographs (Figs. 230-232), show that these columns were not materially affected by the removal of the Turkish 
vault and walls in 1844. 

2 The protective effect of these walls is perhaps best seen in Flandin’s drawing (PLATE LIV, 1), which was made 
in 1837. 

3 Cf. Ch. I, p. 99, note 4. 

4 According to Thiersch (Hrechtheum, I, p. 86) much petty damage was done to the fallen mouldings during this 
period by the numerous visitors — chiefly from the European men-of-war at Piraeus — who were eager to carry 
away bits of carving as souvenirs. 

5 William Cole, Select Views of the Remains of Ancient Monuments in Greece, pl. VIII. In his preface the 


author says: “The Drawings . . . are a selection from a number of sketches made under peculiarly favourable cir- 
cumstances . . . in 1833. . . . The author was so fortunate as to arrive at Athens in May, just after the Turks had 
evacuated the town. ... No liberty or license has been taken with the Views for the sake of picturesque effect.” 


Metzger’s drawing from the southwest (Thiersch, Hrechtheum, I, pl. III), made in January, 1832, is wholly unsatisfac- 
tory, owing to the restorations and omissions of the artist. He has eliminated all the late walls, earth, and rubbish 
which buried the lower part of the building, especially at the west end, and has drawn what was then concealed 
without indicating the extent of his conjectures. Cf. the remarks of Semper, who was in Athens with Thiersch 
and Metzger, in his Kleine Schriften, p. 112. The drawing by Wolfensberger, reproduced in V. Davydov, Putevyia 
Zapiski, Atlas, pl. XTX (see App. C, No. 115), agrees in general with Cole’s view. 


560 THE ERECHTHEUM 


East Portico alone remains substantially as it was drawn by Thirmer.' With Cole’s 
drawing we reach the last stage in the ruin of the Erechtheum, and may now turn to the 


history of its restoration. 


VI. Tue RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HRECHTHEUM 


On April 1, 1833, the Turkish garrison finally left the Acropolis, where it was replaced by 
a detachment of Bavarians, who were in turn withdrawn two years later ? in consequence 
of the decision of August, 1834, which definitely abandoned all military occupation of the 
Acropolis, and approved, in principle, the removal of modern disfigurements and the 
restoration, as far as possible, of their fallen members to the ancient buildings. Even 
before the departure of the Bavarians work had been begun * under the highly competent 
direction of Ludwig Ross, the Ephor-General of Antiquities, but the funds at his disposal 
were very small for so large an undertaking, and progress was naturally slow. Attention 
was first directed to uncovering the steps of the Parthenon, rebuilding the temple of Athena 
Nike, and freeing the Propylaea from the Turkish bastions. There is no mention of the 
Erechtheum until the summer of 1835,‘ when, in clearing the base of the northeast column 
of the North Portico, the Turkish vault in the angle between the Portico and the north 
wall (PLaTE I) was discovered, as well as the opening through the foundations, the crypt, 
and the passage through the north wall into the main building (PuatTe VII).*° As this 
passage and apparently the crypt itself were choked with earth, and as Ross was rightly 
unwilling to carry on disconnected operations, further investigation here was abandoned 
until the systematic clearance of the Erechtheum could be undertaken. 

Unfortunately when this time came Ross was no longer in office. A serious difference 
with the ministry led to his resignation in September, 1836, and with his retirement the 


1 With the state of the building shown in Cole’s drawing may be compared the following brief description given 
by Christopher Wordsworth, who was in Athens in 1833 (Athens and Attica, first edition, p. 183): “It would require 
a much longer inscription than that just alluded to [the Chandler inscription], to specify in minute detail what is now 
defective or dilapidated in this edifice. A general statement may suffice. Of the eastern hexastyle portico five columns 
are still standing: but the south wall of the cella is almost entirely destroyed. In the Caryatid portico one of the 
four marble beams of the roof has fallen; three only of the six Caryatides remain; there survive but two of the four 
engaged columns in the western wall; the north wall of the cella and three of the columns in the north hexastyle portico, 
with the roof over these last columns, are yet entire: the rest of the roof of this graceful portico has fallen.” The 
“north wall of the cella,” here said to be entire, is, of course, only that part of the north wall which is behind the 
North Portico. The rest of the wall had in great part fallen long before. 

Leake’s statement (Topography of Athens?, I, p. 627) that “in 1832 the southern column of the eastern portico 
had fallen” is certainly an error. The southeast corner is one of the few parts of the building which remains prac- 
tically unchanged (except for the loss and restoration of part of the frieze and cornice) in all the drawings and photo- 
graphs from Dalton to the present day. 

? Turkish evacuation, March 20/April 1, 1833 (Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 1); Bavarians withdrawn, March 
18/30, 1835 (ibid., col. 7). 

* In August and September, 1834, a little restoration of the Parthenon was attempted by von Klenze, but it was 
happily soon discontinued. Ross began his work in January, 1835 (Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 3). 

4 Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 98. 

® See above, Ch. I, pp. 104-110. The opening in the pavement of the North Portico was, however, apparently 
not discovered until the removal of the Turkish vault over the old powder-magazine in 1845. 


HISTORY 561 


clear, exact, and regular reports which had marked his administration ceased. His suc- 
cessor, K. 8. Pittakis,! was indeed zealous in prosecuting the undertaking, so far as his 
scanty means permitted, but neither by previous training nor natural ability was he fitted 
to describe or interpret his discoveries, while his writings show a conspicuous lack of pre- 
cise observation and accurate record. Systematic reports were no longer issued, and the 
brief notices which may be found in the ’Edquepis “Apyaodoyexy, or in the published records 
of the ’Apxaodoyixy ‘Eracpia, fail to give any adequate picture of the course of events. It is 
quite impossible, therefore, to follow in detail the partial reconstruction of the Erechtheum 
which was in progress between 1837 and 1840, although the results obtained can be deter- 
mined with considerable certainty from approximately contemporary drawings and the 
information later given by Pittakis to the Greek Commission of 1852.? 

The operations included the removal, at any rate in part, of the masses of earth which 
encumbered the exterior and concealed in great measure the crepis and the lower courses of 
the walls, and the replacement of the fallen blocks and columns. Neither division of the 
work was at this time carried to completion. The later drawings show that at many points 
the earth still covered the lower steps, while the North Portico contained the remains of 
the Turkish magazine, and the Porch of the Maidens was disfigured by modern walls, which 
replaced the missing statues and sustained what was left of the architrave and roof. Most, 
if not all, of these deficiencies were due to lack of money and of proper apparatus for hand- 
ling large masses of stone. Yet in spite of these difficulties much was accomplished, and 
in particular the exterior of the main building then received substantially the form which 
it retained until 1903. After 1840 the work on the Erechtheum was chiefly confined to the 
partial restoration of the two side porticoes, the clearing of the surroundings, and the more 
careful examination of the interior. 

Turning to the details of the work begun in 1837, we find that at the east end the steps 
and floor of the portico were cleared, thus showing the destruction caused by the Christian 
apse, and also laying bare the base of the northeast anta. The north wall at this point had 
fallen, but most of the stones had not been employed elsewhere and the anta was now re- 
constructed, with some patching, to a height of seven courses.’ Further digging around the 
northeast foundations led to the discovery of the inserted column drum and other earlier 
repairs at the corner, and apparently of the little podium with the marks of the flight of 


1 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 8, note 6. Pittakis was at this time “Egopos rod Kevrpixod Moveeiov. He was not 
appointed Teds “Edopos until January 1, 1849. His statements about the Erechtheum, though often vague or obscure, 
are happily free from any suspicion of deliberate falsification. 

2 The drawings of Flandin (Puate LIV, 1), Skene (Figs. 224-227), Hansen (Fig. 228), Du Moncel (Vues pitto- 
resque des monuments d’Athenes, pl. II = De Vénise a Constantinople a travers la Gréce, pl. XI), Chenevard (Voyage en 
Grece et dans le Levant, pls. XVI, XVII), and Rey (Voyage pittoresque en Gréce, pls. XXIV = Puate LIV, 2, and XXV) 
were all made between 1837 and 1844. Brief accounts of the work are given by Rangabé, ’E¢. ’Apx., I, 1837, pp. 12, 
13; Ross, Arch. Aufs., 1, pp. 121 ff. (important for the discoveries in 1837); Pittakis in Hobhouse, Journey through 
Albania?, II, p. 448. 

3 Rangabé, l.c., p. 12; Report Gr. Comm., § 5. 


ee Se ae 


562 THE ERECHTHEUM 


East Portico at the east end, but that from this point to the east side of the North Portico — 
only the orthostates and the course above were in place. Four complete courses were relaid 4 
and a number of stones in seven more, leaving a somewhat larger gap in the centre than — 
now appears. At the northwest corner above the roof of the North Portico two courses — 
are said to have been replaced.’ It is noteworthy that most of what is now missing ha 
disappeared before the building was drawn by Pars in 1765, and had apparently been carried 
away or broken up. The later damage seems to have been confined to tearing down th 
wall for the sake of the lead and iron, while the stones themselves were left lying wh 
they fell. Since few were re-used or broken, it has been possible to reconstruct most of 
what was standing in Stuart’s day. Along the base of the wall the clearing was not carri 
very deep, for the poros foundation of the marble pavement (PLATE I) was not detect 
until Bétticher’s excavations of 1862, or fully cleared until 1887.? 


1 On these earlier repairs at the northeast corner, see above, p. 527; Report Gr. Comm., § 4; Ross, Arch. Aufs., 
p. 122. 


2 Rangabé, l. c.; Report Gr. Comm. § 17, pl. IV. This plate shows that here only two interbeams and a bled é 
the epicranitis were actually replaced. In all these repairs imperfect stones and small gaps were pieced out with brick 
5 See below, pp. 571, 574; Cavvadias and Kawerau, cols. 33, 85. 


: 


HISTORY 563 


Ficur& 225. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE SOUTHWEST: JAMES SKENE, 1839 


The North Portico received little attention. The northwest corner column was strength- 
ened and work was begun, then or later, on a new drum to replace the uppermost one, 
which had disappeared. The column to the south of the corner was more extensively re- 
paired, since the capital and broken upper drum were replaced, the latter being held to- 
gether by two iron bands, while the third drum from the top, which was badly cracked, 
was secured by vertical iron clamps.' 

At the north end of the west wall the Turkish masonry, so conspicuous in the earlier 
drawings, was removed, and the small door in the North Portico discovered, greatly to the 
surprise of some of the resident archaeologists.? It is strange that the existence of this 
door should have been so entirely forgotten in Athens, for it had been known to Inwood 
and recorded by Fauvel on his plan.* On the wall itself the fallen southern column was 


1 According to Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 9, a report of Pittakis in the archives of the Ephor-General, dated 
December 1, 1837, announces that three columns of the North Portico had been re-erected and the south wall in 
great part rebuilt; cf. Report Gr. Comm., § 20, where the date is given as 1838 according to the testimony of Pit- 
takis. The difference in dates shows clearly how little reliance can be placed on his evidence in matters of detail. 
The statement that the columns were re-erected is an exaggeration, as the intercolumnar wall forming the sides of the 
magazine held all but the upper part of the columns in place. The damage to the drums seems to have been caused 
by cannon balls rather than by falling. For the appearance of the Portico after these restorations, see the drawings by 
Skene (Figs. 224, 225) and Hansen (Fig. 228). 

2 Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 124 (= Kunstblatt, 1837, No. 79, p. 326), in speaking of the excavations along the west 
wall: ‘Doch ist hier durch den Abbruch eines tiirkischen an dem Vorsprung der nérdlichen Halle in dem Winkel 
sich anlehnenden Gemiuers, ganz unerwartet eine antike Thiiréffnung zum Vorschein gekommen.” In a note added 
later (ibid., p. 124) Ross refers to Inwood’s mention of this door, and adds that its antiquity is certain. 

3 Inwood, ed. min., p. 4, text to pl. II. For Fauvel’s plan, see above, p. 547. 


564 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Figure 226. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE NORTHEAST: JAMES SKENE, JANUARY 8, 1841 - 


reérected and the three columns joined by two architrave blocks. The stump of the north- 
ern column remained untouched, and no attempt was made to restore the intercolumnar 
wall and the windows.! At the southwest corner the space beneath the great stone was 
cleared and a rubble wall constructed to support the great stone itself, which was cracked.” 
The south wall had shared the fate of the north. The east anta was intact, and so was the 
‘wall behind the Porch of the Maidens, but the rest of the wall above the orthostates had 
fallen.* It was possible, however, to rebuild six courses and a large part of a seventh. The 
inner facing of the orthostates, which was missing in the eighteenth century,‘ was replaced 
by a brick lining, and brick was freely used to fill small gaps. According to Pittakis the 
stones at the west corner above the roof of the Porch of the Maidens were also replaced at 
this time.’ The steps at the base of the wall were cleared, and the stylobate of the Hecatom- 
pedon exposed for about 4 m. along the side of the Erechtheum.°® 
1 This work was begun in 1837; Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 125; Rangabé, ’E@. ’Apx., I, 1837, p. 18. Pittakis later 
(October, 1852) dated the re-erection of the column in 1840 (Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 14, note 3). 
? Report Gr. Comm., § 15. The south end of course 16 was left exposed in order to show the oblique cutting at 
this point, as appears from the elevation of the west wall by Tétaz (D’Espouy, Mon. ant., pl. 39). 
® Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 122, notes that the orthostates were completely preserved; see also above, p. 558, note 1. 
On the statement of Pittakis that the orthostates near the centre of the wall had been replaced by him, see p. 5138, 
note 3, and the references there given. 
* See above, Ch. I, p. 48, note 1, and Ch. V, p. 547. 
> Report Gr. Comm., § 6. On the repairs at this southwest corner, see above, p. 558, note 2. 
° This excavation does not appear to be noticed in any of the reports, but is shown plainly by Tétaz in his south 


and east elevations and in the original drawing of his plan (D’Espouy, Mon. ant., pl. 39). It is omitted from the 
engraved plan published in the Revue Archéologique, VIII, 1851, pl. 158. 


hm 


Te) ge oe oe 


ign fla 


- 


ey et ee 


eR 


et 
weet 


ed 


- 


oA ee ee Ae oe 


HISTORY 565 


Ficure 227. THE INTERIOR OF THE ERECHTHEUM: JAMES SKENE, MAY 25, 1841 


In these excavations there came to light the torso and several fragments of the lower 
part of the long missing Maiden from the east side of the Porch. The head, however, had 
disappeared, and the condition of the rest was such that at the time it was believed unsafe 
to attempt its restoration, since it could not be made strong enough to support the archi- 
trave and roof.1 The second figure from the east on the south was more fortunate. It had 
been thrown down, as has been said, by the Turkish bombardment, and the head broken 
off. The latter had been found by Pittakis some time before, and it was now joined to the 
body, which had been, until this time, lying where it had fallen, and the complete statue 
restored to its old position.? The capital was missing, however, and the figure was appar- 
ently thought too weak to bear any great weight, for no attempt was made to replace the 
fallen architrave or ceiling. At the northwest corner of the Porch, where the capital of the 
pilaster and part of the architrave had been shot away, another pillar of masonry was added 
to those which already disfigured the Porch.’ 

By the rebuilding of the walls the interior had been freed from many stones which had 

1 Rangabé, ’E¢. ’Apx., I, 1837, p. 12; Ross, Arch. Aufs., 1, p. 122. Ross attributed the fall of the statue to a Vene- 
tian bomb, and thought that the marks on the neck indicated that the head had been cut off for removal rather than 
broken by the fall. The chief objection to ascribing the fall of the figure to this cause is the absence of any reference 
in the pre-Venetian and Venetian accounts to more than the four statues on the south side. The fresh gap and the 
fallen figure could hardly have escaped all notice. 

2 The figure was given a new plinth, and there was a little restoration on the neck and hair by the Swiss sculptor, 
Imhof (Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 121). 

3 See the drawings of Skene (Fig. 225), Hansen (Fig. 228), and Du Moncel (Vues pittoresques des monuments 


d’ Athenes, pl. III) for the effect of these props of masonry, which almost surrounded the statues and completely 
destroyed the true effect of the Porch. Cf. also the remarks of Tétaz, R. Arch., VIII, 1851, p. 6, note 1. 


566 THE ERECHTHEUM 


hindered earlier investigators, and it was now further cleared in the old nave of the church 
to the level of the pavement. The south aisle was excavated to the rock and found to 
contain Christian graves.! Most of the north aisle remained untouched and earth still 
covered part of the north aisle wall, but at its west end the space before the entrance to 
the crypt, a part at any rate of the crypt itself, and the late passage under the east founda- 
tions of the North Portico were cleared,? though not sufficiently to detect the “‘trident 
marks.” At the east end the work was not pushed below the level of the nave, and the 
threshold of the iconostasis seems to have escaped notice, as it is not mentioned in any 
description and appears first in the plans of Ballu (1844) * and Tétaz (1847), although the 
latter for some reason omits the threshold of the Diaconicum in the south aisle, shown by 
the former. At the west end the great cistern was now clearly revealed, but no attempt was 
made to remove its covering.* One result of the excavations in the interior was to establish 
beyond cavil the transformation of the temple into a church, — a fact, which, as we have 
seen, had been strongly suspected for some years.° 

After 1840 systematic work on the Erechtheum again came to a standstill for a time,® 
but in 1844-45 the Greek Archaeological Society undertook the task of removing the re- 
mains of the powder magazine from the North Portico. It was a work of no small difficulty, 
since it involved lowering the beams, which had fallen on the roof of the vault, without 
harming the columns or disturbing the uninjured portion of the ceiling. The task was, 
however, successfully accomplished, all modern accretions were cleared away from the 
interior of the Portico, thus exposing the opening in the floor,’ and the stones with which 
the great North Door had been walled up were removed. In the walls of the vault were 
found inscriptions and a number of fragments of the marble figures from the frieze. The 


1 Report Gr. Comm., § 35. 2 Rangabé in Thiersch, Hrechtheum, I, p. 175. 

’ The plan and drawings of Ballu are in the library of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. 

4 The openings in the centre and in the southwest corner which appear in the plan by Tétaz are almost cer- 
tainly the old openings for drawing the water. There is no reason to suppose them the work of the excavators. 

5 See above, p. 493. Rangabé, ’E¢. ’Apx., I, 1837, p. 12; Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg), July 16, 1838, Beilage, 
p. 1495, the summary of an article in the Athenian newspaper Zwrfp, in which the recently completed work in the 
Erechtheum was carelessly and vaguely described, but the transformation into a church emphasized. The condition 
of the interior at this time is shown in Skene’s drawing (Fig. 227). 

6 It is probable that most of the restoration was completed by 1838, though if Pittakis gave correctly the date of 
the replacement of the column of the west wall (see above, p. 564, note 1), work of some importance was still in prog- 
ress in 1840. For the appearance of the Erechtheum until about 1850 the chief sources are still the drawings and en- 
gravings, especially the former, since the engravers are often careless in details or worked from faulty originals. The 
travellers who visited Athens during these years seldom furnish anything beyond general descriptions, which usually 
combine the existing conditions with the supposed ancient appearance and the views of the writer about the original 
divisions and uses of the building, so that it is often difficult to distinguish between what was actually seen and what 
was visible only to the imagination. In fact, without the drawings it would be quite impossible to form any adequate 
idea of the condition and surroundings of the Erechtheum before 1852. For the drawings and the more important 
descriptions see the Chronological Bibliography in Appendix C. 

7 The opening in the floor of the Portico, but not the marks in the rock below, is drawn by Ballu in his plan (1844) 
with the note: “Excavation antique, mise 4 découvert & la suite des fouilles faites tout récemment.” 

* On the clearing of the Portico, see A. R. Rangabé, R. Arch., I, 1845, pp. 321 ff.; Dbvoyrs rav Upaxrixav ris 
dpxatodoyiijs éraiplas rv ’AOqvev, 1845, pp. 198-201. The Archaeological Society spent 572 dr. on this work (Zivoyis, 
pp. 206-207; Iavéapa, VI, 1855-56, p. 475), but Pittakis later declared that of this sum 122dr. were spent on refresh- 
ments for the annual meeting of the Society (’E¢. ’Apx., 1856, pp. 1310-11). 


HISTORY 567 


remains of architrave, frieze, beams, and coffers were arranged near the Portico, and the 
Society cherished the hope of restoring them to their original positions; but this plan was 
not carried out, probably because of lack of funds.! 

In the year after the work on the North Portico was finished, the restoration of the 
Porch of the Maidens was begun at the instance of Piscatory, the French Minister, with 
funds partly raised through the Legation and partly contributed by the Minister him- 
self.” The work was directed by a young French architect, A. Paccard, a member of the 


Figure 228. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE SOUTHWEST: CHRISTIAN HANSEN, ABOUT 1844 


French Academy in Rome, and one of the first of the penstonnaires who received permission 
to take Greek ruins as the subject of the restorations which form part of the work of the 
architects at the Villa Medici.? The Caryatid from the east side, which had been discovered 
nine years before, was restored — none too successfully — by the Italian sculptor An- 
dreoli ¢ and replaced. A new capital was fitted to the northwest pilaster and a new bit of 


1 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 11. For the appearance of the building at this time, see the drawing made in 
1845 by H. R. Ricardo (Puate LIV, 3). 

2 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 12, note 5. 

3 G. Radet, Histoire et Vewvre de UE cole francaise d’Athenes, pp. 18-20. The first group and their subjects were 
Ballu, “the Temple of Minerva Polias”’ (1844, see App. C, No. 127), Paccard, “the Parthenon” (1846), and Titieux, 
“the Propylaea” (1847). Their “Envois” are in the library of the Ncole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. 

4 Only the ancient torso, from neck to hips, was used in this restoration. Apparently the fragments of the lower 
part (Ross, Arch. Aufs., I, p. 122: “Acht bis zehn grisseren und kleineren Fragmenten”’) could not be satisfactorily 
pieced together so as to furnish proper support to the weight above. 


568 THE ERECHTHEUM 


architrave placed upon it. The statue which had been shot down in 1826 and re-erected 
in 1837 was also given a new capital, and the architrave above was restored, but no attempt 
was made to replace the fallen roof at this point. A terra cotta cast of the Elgin figure, 
which had been presented by the British Government, was substituted for the rude pillar 
of masonry erected by Lusieri.1 All the other brick and stone pillars which had so long 
disfigured the Porch were removed, but slender iron columns on either side of the re- 
placed statue on the south side supported the new architrave (Fig. 231), and the cast from 
London was enabled to sustain the weight of the roof by a similar rod inside. New blocks 
also replaced damaged portions of the podium and steps, and the opening in the east side 
of the former was cleared.2. With the completion of this work in the spring of 1847 ® the 
exterior of the Erechtheum, except at the west end, assumed substantially the appearance 
which it maintained until 1903. 

The condition of the Erechtheum, freed at last from most of the modern accretions 
which had so long obscured its true form, was now more favorable to serious investiga- 
tion than at any time since it had attracted the attention of western visitors, and it is not 
surprising that another architect of the French Academy in Rome, J.-M. Tétaz, chose it 
as the subject of his ‘‘envoi de Rome.” He came to Athens in 1847, and completed his 
drawings there and in Rome during the following years,’ finally exhibiting his work in the 
Salon of 1850, and publishing his explanatory memoir in the Revue Archéologique for 1851.° 

The theories and the restoration proposed by Tétaz may be passed over here, but his 
drawings are of importance as including the first accurate sections and plan showing the 
actual state of the building. The plan in particular presents a unique record of conditions 
in the interior which soon passed away.’ Tétaz also first gave a careful, though not wholly 
complete, report on the crypt under the North Portico’ and the passage from it into the 
interior, both of which were now fully cleared, as well as the west end of the north aisle of 
the church. Tétaz, however, was rather a recorder than an explorer, and his work left the 

1 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 11. 

2 Tétaz, R. Arch., VIII, 1851, p. 6, note 1. The opening in the podium appears —- apparently for the first time 
since Fauvel — in Ballu’s East Elevation (1844). 

3 Charles Lévéque, Journal des Savants, 1879, p. 750. 

* Some of the drawings of details are dated ‘“Athénes, 1847’; the unrestored elevations and plan, “ Athénes- 
Rome, 1848”; the restorations, “Rome, 1849.” 

° R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pp. 1-12, 81-96, pls. 158, 159. An abridged translation, with additional illustrations by 
the Hansens and Hoffer, appeared in the Vienna Allgemeine Bauzeitung, XVI, 1851, pp. 335-353, pls. 429-435. The 
original drawings by Tétaz and the manuscript of his mémoire explicatif are in the library of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts 
at Paris. See below, App. C, Nos. 132, 143. 

6 The importance of this plan for the restoration of the church has already been noted, p. 493. Ballu’s earlier 
work, though skilful, is much less accurate in details. 

7 Tétaz (l.c., p. 10) records that it was the lack of contact surfaces in some of the stones surrounding the opening 
in the pavement which first attracted his attention and led him to believe that the opening, in part at least, was Greek. 
He, therefore, proceeded to clear the whole area to the rock, and thus discovered the “trident marks.” He was not 
properly the discoverer of anything else connected with the crypt, but he was certainly the first to make a thorough 
examination of it. Curiously enough Rangabé in his letter of December 13/25, 1848, in which he reported the dis- . 


covery of the “trident marks,” crypt, and passage through the north wall, does not mention the name of Tétaz 
(Thiersch, Erechtheum, I, pp. 182-183). 


HISTORY 569 


appearance of the building almost unchanged. Somewhat more extensive were the altera- 
tions due to the next undertaking. 

During the years of reconstruction on the Acropolis the independent study of the nature 
and original plan of the Erechtheum had not been neglected in western Europe, and widely 
divergent opinions on these points had been advocated, generally based, as was natural 
under the circumstances, upon very inadequate knowledge of the remains of the building. 
In particular a violent controversy had arisen between Friedrich Thiersch of Munich and 
Carl Botticher of Berlin, which was complicated by the publication of the drawings of 
Tétaz, showing the actual state of the inside of the north and south walls, but leaving un- 
answered many questions which the disputants regarded as essential. Accordingly in 1852 
Thiersch determined to proceed to Athens and secure at his own expense a new and com- 
plete examination of the building by an independent committee of Greek scholars. The 
report of this committee, which is dated August 5, 1853, and the accompanying drawings 
by the Greek architect, Panagiotis Kalkos, furnish reliable information as to the state of 
the building at the time and the alterations wrought by the investigation. 

Outside of the Erechtheum there was but little change, since only at the west end was 
there any excavation. South of the door in the west wall the earth was cleared away to 
the rock of the Acropolis, which was found to be uneven. Then, or earlier, the foundations 
north of this door were uncovered as far as the North Portico, and some of the stones 
propped by modern walls.! In the Porch of the Maidens the committee dug between the 
south wall of the main building and the foundation of the peristyle of the Hecatompedon, 
but found only late fillmg and a modern wall (part of which still remains) beneath the 
threshold of the south door.? In the North Portico they found four crevices in the bottom 
of the crypt, and by breaking away part of the Turkish receptacle in its northwest corner 
determined that this did not extend below the surface of the rock.’ 

It was in the interior of the main building that the committee wrought the greatest 
changes. At the east end they cleared the space once occupied by the altar of the church, 
finding a Christian grave, as well as strongly built foundations, which were considered to 
be post-Hellenic and were thereupon destroyed, apparently without any further record.‘ 
They also made trial diggings to determine the nature and extent of the foundations of the 
East Portico and the material used.* In both north and south aisles the line of the eastern 
transverse wall was carefully examined, and late quadrangular foundations in both aisles 
were removed in order to lay bare the rock. A trench was dug along the line of this wall 
from the centre of the nave to the north wall, thus opening the existing breach in the 


1 Report Gr. Comm., § 15. The committee say nothing about clearing the rest of the foundations, but their eleva- 
tion of the west end (Report, pl. II) shows the foundations and the modern supporting walls. On the other hand the 
west elevation by Tétaz (1848) shows the lower steps and foundations of the west wall buried in heaps of earth 
(D’Espouy, Mon. ant., pl. 39). It is probable that the region was excavated by Pittakis between 1848 and 1852. 

2 Report Gr. Comm., § 12. On the prehistoric remains preserved in this modern wall, see Ch. I, pp. 13, 14, Fig. 6. 

3 Report Gr. Comm., § 22. 4 Report Gr. Comm., § 35. 5 Report Gr. Comm., § 47. 


570 THE ERECHTHEUM 


north aisle wall (Fig. 93). In this trench a large stone was found resting on the rock.t 
Either this excavation, or another in the nave, showed that the pavement was made of 
thin marble slabs, bedded in mortar, resting on a filling of reddish earth mixed with mortar, 
which the committee rightly regarded as conclusive evidence of its late origin.? At the west 
end the inside of the cistern was tested to determine whether there was any trace of a pas- 
sage to another underground chamber, and part of the covering was broken away, revealing 
clearly the projecting course beneath the orthostates of the west wall.’ 

Even while the committee was engaged in drawing up its report, the Erechtheum was 
again injured. In the great storm which broke over Athens in the night of October 14/26, 
1852, doing much damage in the city and causing heavy losses along the coast, the three 
columns remaining on the west wall were blown down. According to Sir Thomas Wyse, 
the British Minister, ‘‘they were swept clean away from their bases into the adjoining 
temple by a violent blast from the south-west about eleven o’clock. Two of the shafts are 
now seen lying in the broken modern vault, through which they fell, tolerably well pre- 
served; two-thirds of each shaft remain, with portions of the attached wall. The third is 
flung at some small distance. The capitals are shattered into fragments, and scattered in 
every direction.” + Although Wyse urged the importance of immediate restoration before 
the carved fragments were carried away by visitors, and although the raising of a consider- 
able sum (25,000 dr.) for the replacement of all the fallen members had been included in 
Thiersch’s plan,*® nothing resulted from these appeals, and there was no further restoration 
until 1903. 

Although the report of this committee was by far the most complete and accurate de- 
scription of the Erechtheum which had yet appeared, it did not cover all the disputed 
points, while the very limited number of elevations and sections were quite inadequate to 
supply the missing information. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that each contestant 
found in its statements irrefutable arguments for his previously expressed opinions, and 
that the need of further investigation became increasingly obvious. Finally in 1862 
Botticher induced the Prussian government to send him to Athens with Ernst Curtius 
and Johann Heinrich Strack as his colleagues to study anew the problems connected with 
the Erechtheum and other Athenian monuments.° Work began on the Acropolis early in 


1 Report Gr. Comm., § 44. On the concrete quadrangular foundations in the aisles, see above, p. 516. The large 
stone may have been part of a prehistoric wall which had served as a foundation for the Greek east cross-wall, or it 
may have been left by Christian builders of the aisle walls. 

2 Report Gr. Comm., § 35. 3 Report Gr. Comm., §§ 33, 37, pl. IV. 

* Letter from the Right Honorable Thomas Wyse, dated January 4, 1853, in Archaeologia, XXXV, 1853, p. 24. 
This storm also blew down one of the three detached columns of the Olympieum. Wyse could find no evidence that 
the gale was accompanied by an earthquake. All the damage was due to the extraordinary violence of the wind, 
which fortunately only lasted four hours. 

5 Thiersch, E'pikrisis, p. 25 (357), note. 

® An account of the work on the Acropolis was published by Bétticher in the Berlin Zeitschrift fiir Bauwesen, 
XIII, 1863, cols. 195-224, 405-407, 557-608, pls. Ni-Nje, and reprinted in his book, Untersuchungen auf der Acro- 
polis von Athen im Frihjahr 1862; see App. C, No. 175. 


HISTORY 571 


March and continued until the end of May, 1862, when it was interrupted by Bétticher’s 
unexpected recall to Berlin. So far as the Erechtheum was concerned, these excavations 
yielded comparatively little new information, while hardly any of the conclusions which 
B6étticher drew therefrom have proved tenable.? 

Outside the building attention was chiefly given to a more thorough examination of the 
immediate surroundings. On the south Bétticher uncovered more of the foundations of 
the Hecatompedon, which he interpreted as the remains of an ancient platform of polygonal 
masonry.” At the west end the most important result was the discovery of the stone con- 
taining the water channel in the Pandroseum and the establishment of its connection with 
the cuttings in the steps of the North Portico.* He also reported the presence of numerous 
Christian graves near the west end of the temple, about four feet above the level of the 
rock; they had been only partially removed in the course of the earlier excavations near 
the west wall.* On the north the base of the wall was cleared, exposing part of the poros 
blocks which once supported a marble pavement (PLATE I), but as the excavations did not 
cover the whole area between the temple and the wall of the Acropolis, the nature of the 
discovery was again misunderstood, and it was interpreted as the remains of another 
water channel.*® 

Somewhat farther east, where had once been the flight of steps from the upper to the 
lower level, more late graves were found.’ Apart from a hole about five feet deep between 
the south wall and the ‘‘ polygonal terrace,’’ 7 the exterior excavations do not seem to have 
been pushed very far. There was no attempt to clear thoroughly the whole area about 
the temple, and in fact such an undertaking would have been too great for the time and 
money at the disposal of the expedition. 

In the interior the procedure was much more thorough. The aisles and apse had 
already been cleared, and the work of the Commission in 1852 seems to have destroyed 
much of the pavement of the nave, since Bétticher found it remaining only at the eastern 
end near the iconostasis. He now excavated the entire nave, with the exception of a small 
section in the southeast corner, to the native rock, and even cleared a hole in the rock in 
the old central room to a depth of four feet. These operations brought to light many objects 
which were thought to have been buried by the Christians, since they were found below 


1 See the judgment of Adolf Michaelis in the life of B6étticher in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, XLVII, pp. 
150-151: ‘Fast alle bedeutenderen Beobachtungen, die er hier machte, haben sich freilich spiter als irrthiimlich 
erwiesen. ... Am Poliastempel stiirzt mit dem mittelalterlichen Ursprung der Schlitzfenster die angenommene ~ 
Doppelstéckigkeit zusammen (Borrmann); Bétticher’s Kritik des Dreizackmales als solchen hat sich als unhaltbar 
erwiesen; es bleiben wesentlich nur eine Beobachtung iiber Wasserableitung an der Nordhalle und die Bestitigung 
eines 6stlichen Einganges zur Korenhalle bestehen.”’ 

2 Untersuchungen, pp. 206-208. 

3 Untersuchungen, pp. 209-213. See on this channel above, Ch. I, pp. 123-125 and Prats VIII. 

4 Untersuchungen, p. 211: 

5 Untersuchungen, pp. 215-221. Cf. Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 85. For the correction of this error, see p. 574. 

6 Untersuchungen, p. 214. 

7 Untersuchungen, p. 200. 


512 THE ERECHTHEUM 


the assumed level of the pavement. They included two Ionic capitals, a considerable part 
of the jambs and lintels of the east windows, column drums, inscriptions, and fragments 
of the frieze. The most important object from Bétticher’s point of view was a large bronze 
lamp in the form of a boat (Fig. 229), which was discovered in the central chamber in or 
close to the west transverse wall. He naturally regarded this as an offering to Poseidon- 
Erechtheus, and thus as supporting his theory that the seat of this cult was the crypt which 
he had assumed in the centre of the building.2, Unfortunately for this hypothesis the lamp 


FiagurE 229. BRONZE LAMP FOUND IN THE ERECHTHEUM IN 1862 


has been cleaned in recent years and found to bear the inscription ‘Iepdv ris “AOnvas.® At 
the west end enough of the lining of the cistern was broken away to prove that it was 
partly cut in the rock.’ 

With the withdrawal of Botticher the first stage in the reconstruction of the Erechtheum 
came to anend. Much had been accomplished in the twenty-five years which had elapsed 
since Pittakis began his work. The interior had been in great measure cleared of fallen 
blocks and rubbish, the walls had been partially rebuilt, and the porticoes freed from mod- 
ern constructions. It is true that much remained to be done. The entablature and ceiling 
of the western half of the North Portico were still on the ground (Fig. 230), the columns of 
the West Fagade lay where they had fallen in 1852, and the roof of the Porch of the Maidens 
lacked one of the four great blocks (Fig. 231). None of these deficiencies, however, offered 
any serious obstacle to the comprehension of the original building, nor was there reason to 
suppose that their removal would add appreciably to the knowledge of ancient conditions; 

1 Untersuchungen, pp. 193-197. 

2 Untersuchungen, p.194. See also Pittakis in ’E¢. ’Apx., 1862, cols. 39 and 91 (with cut). According to Pittakis 
the lamp was found February 27 (March 10) at 10 a.m. in a hole in the west transverse wall. 

3 A. De Ridder, Catalogue des Bronzes de l’ Acropole, pp. 139-141, No. 425, fig. 95; at that time (1896) the in- 


scription had not been discovered. V. Stais, Vases et Bronzes du Musée National, pp. 276-277, No. 7038. 
4 Untersuchungen, p. 197. 


HISTORY 573 


indeed the architectural and constructive details could be better studied on the fallen mem- 
bers than on those which had been replaced. Except at the west end it might fairly be 
assumed that all that remained of the original building was open to view, for the few rem- 
nants of the church pavement and walls were not likely to conceal any new facts. Even at 
the west end enough of the covering of the cistern had been broken away along the edges to 
show the course below the orthostates in the west wall, the threshold of the North Door, 
and the space below the door into the Porch of the Maidens; but the lining within the 
cistern still remained unbroken save at a few points, and there seems to have been no 
thought of disturbing it, in spite of a very general belief that its removal would bring to 
light traces of the @4\acca.1 Since, therefore, more complete restoration of the Erechtheum 
would have been a difficult and expensive task, and since in its partially restored condition 
the building offered a practically unhampered opportunity for investigation, it is not 
surprising that during the next twenty-five years there were no material changes in its 
appearance. 

For this uneventful period in the later history of the Erechtheum we have unim- 
peachable evidence in the numerous photographs of the exterior, though strange to say no 
one apparently thought the interior worth taking, or at any rate worth publishing. Yet 
this neglect, shared, as we have seen, by the earlier artists, seriously hampers our under- 
standing of the conditions under which much of the interpretation and discussion was car- 
ried on. In all these years the “‘present state’ of the interior is represented, so far as I 
know, only by the plan prepared by Marcel Lambert in 1877 for insertion in his restoration 
of the Acropolis.” . 

The great excavation of the Acropolis between 1885 and 1890 affected the surroundings 
of the Erechtheum rather than the building itself. In 1886 the foundations of the Heca- 
tompedon were identified and the excavation continued along the south side of the Erech- 
theum. Harly in the same year the deposit of archaic female statues was discovered on the 
northwest, and nearer the building the Christian cemetery, already noted by Bétticher, 
was removed, but only to find that its construction had destroyed all traces of earlier 
remains.® This excavation, however, proved, according to Kawerau, the former existence 

1 The mortar lining of the tank had been broken away in a few places to determine the character of the foundations 
and the extent of the rock cutting. Ross believed that the cistern had been so embedded in the ancient foundations 
that its removal would cause the fall, or at least the sinking, of the west wall and of parts of the north and south 
walls (Arch. Aufs., I, p. 280 = Arch. Ztg., VIII, 1850, pp. 178 ff.). There seems to be no record of the partial destruc- 
tion of the vault over the cistern, but its state as shown in the plans of Tétaz and of the Commission of 1852 differs 
considerably from that which appears in the plans of Lambert (D’Espouy, Frag. arch. ant., I, pl. X) and Michaelis 
(J.-M., Atlas, XXI-XXV). 

2 The drawings for this restoration, including the unrestored and restored plans of the Acropolis, are in the library 
of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts at Paris. The unrestored plan of the Erechtheum has been published by D’Espouy, 
Frag. arch. ant., I, pl. X. Lambert also wrote a brief mémoire justificatif on his restoration of the Erechtheum, 


the manuscript of which is also in the library of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. It does not add anything to what is 


known from other sources. 
3 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 33. Kawerau, Berl. phil. W., VIII, 1888, col. 185 = Deutsche Bauzeitung, XXII, 


1888, pp. 2-5. 


574 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Ficure 230. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE NORTHWEST, ABOUT 1890 


of the peribolos wall running southwest from the corresponding corner of the North Portico 
and then turning to the south (PLATE I).t About the same time the north end of the wall 
built by Pittakis under the great stone at the southwest corner of the building was partially 
removed, in order to expose more fully the oblique cutting of the south end of the west wall, 
and a stone pillar was set in its place beneath the south anta.? During the latter part of 
1886 and early in 1887 the work was continued along the north and east sides, and the entire 
foundation of the front was laid bare,* as well as the area between the temple and the wall 
of the Acropolis (Fig. 7 4), thus bringing to light the true extent and nature of the poros 
blocks, the edges of which Botticher had regarded as part of a water channel, but which 
were now recognized as the foundation for a marble pavement. The poros foundation of 
the steps leading down from the east front of the temple was also uncovered.* After the 
excavation here was completed, the retaining wall from the northeast corner of the Erech- 
theum to the wall of the Acropolis and the flight of steps from the higher to the lower level 
(PLatTEe I; Fig. 78) were built, and the area to the east then filled to approximately the 
ancient level (Fig. 232). In the interior of the building there was also a certain amount of 


1 Cavvadias and Kawerau, cols. 85-87. 

? See Gardner, Ancient Athens (plate opposite p. 360), and photographs of the German Institute in Athens, 
which show the wall before and after this alteration. 

3 See the photograph of the German Institute in Athens published A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, p. 418, fig. 5. 

4 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 85 and pl. [’. 


HISTORY 575 


Figure 231. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE SOUTHWEST, ABOUT 1890 


clearing and investigation, but without disturbance of those portions of the church walls 
and pavement which had been left by Botticher. According to Kawerau all these operations 
brought to light no new factors to aid in solving the problems of the building. They showed, 
however, in his opinion, that blocks and fragments from earlier buildings were freely used 
in the foundations of the temple.! 

At the close of the excavations in 1890? the soil of the Acropolis had been almost wholly 
freed from Byzantine and Turkish remains and so thoroughly searched that it might fairly 
be presumed to have yielded up its secrets. Naturally, therefore, the next task was to 
collect and, where possible, to replace the fallen portions of the ancient buildings. A com- 
mencement was made with the Parthenon, which had been somewhat badly shaken by an 
earthquake in 1894, although here the work was largely one of strengthening and repairing 
rather than of restoration. When this task was finished in 1902, a plan was prepared for 
restoring the Erechtheum, not without some adverse criticism,’ and its execution was en- 
trusted to the architect, N. M. Balanos. 

1 Cavvadias and Kawerau, col. 83. Unfortunately Kawerau gives no specifications as to the number or ap- 
pearance of these re-used blocks, or as to the places in the foundations where they are found. Later investigations 
have not confirmed this statement. 

2 The Erechtheum as it appeared from 1890 to 1902 is shown in Figures 230-282. 

3 An English translation of the proposed plan of restoration was published by 8. P. Lambros in the London 


Athenaeum, May 24, 1902, p. 665, and called forth a vigorous protest from R. W. Schultz, ibid., June 28, 1902, pp. 
825-826. A discussion of the general desirability of restoring ancient monuments lies outside the scope of this book, 


576 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Figure 232. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE NORTHEAST, BEFORE 1902 


Work began on the North Portico about the middle of 1902, and was continued through 
1903. New material was employed very sparingly and, according to Balanos, only in the 
following cases: the upper drum of the northwest corner column; two drums of the column 
south of the corner on the west, since the originals were so shattered that they were not 
strong enough to support the entablature; five fragments of the Eleusinian stone of the 
frieze, for which blue upper Pentelic marble was substituted (PLate XLVI); one coffer 
block in the ceiling; about 0.90 m. of the cornice; two blocks of the pediment.! The fallen 
epistyle was found to be in good condition, but the three western beams were all broken, 
and it was necessary to suspend them from concealed iron beams (Puatss I, VII). Al- 
though all but one of the coffer blocks were found, they were often broken, and indeed one 
was pieced together from no less than eight fragments. These operations led to the dis- 
covery of the opening in the roof of the portico above the crypt and to the recognition of 
Roman repairs in the ceiling and cornice.? 
but it may be observed that the usual arguments against this practice lose much of their force when applied to the 
Erechtheum, since, as we have seen, this building was in 1902 in large part a restoration, none too carefully carried 
out, so that Balanos merely completed and corrected a work which was already far advanced. 

' For the details, see Hpaxrixd, 1902, p. 33; 1903, pp. 25, 59-62 (report by Balanos). See also PLatss IV, V, VII, 
VIII, 4, X, XI, and the accompanying text. As shown in the plates, bits of new material were also employed to com- 
plete or strengthen defective places. 


 Tpaxrixd, 1903, p. 61. On the opening in the roof, see above, Ch. I, pp. 89-91; on the Roman repairs, Ch. I, 
pp. 87, 89, 92 and Ch. II, pp. 223, 224. 


eT oe 


HISTORY 577 


Figure 233. THE ERECHTHEUM FROM THE NORTHEAST, AFTER 1909 


In 1904 a new roof of wood and slate ' was given the portico, since only a few tiles of the 
old had survived, and the upper part of the West Facade was rebuilt, by replacing the fallen 
columns, the wall, and the windows in the three central intercolumniations, as well as four 
blocks of the architrave, and a little of the Roman frieze and cornice. Preparations were 
also made for reconstructing and strengthening other parts of the building,” but very little 
‘was accomplished during the next two years, and it was not until 1907 that work was re- 
sumed on a large scale.’ 

During this year the East Portico was thoroughly repaired (Fig. 233). The epistyle was 
removed, the crumbling capitals strengthened, and small fragments, which were found in 
the Museum, added. The southeastern corner column was partly reset, the epistyle re- 
placed with the addition of the newly discovered southern corner, and the blocks of Eleu- 
sinian stone restored to their old position. So much of the cornice as could be found was 
relaid, smaller fragments were incorporated, and the corner block pieced to its original 
length, as shown by the cuttings for dowels in the frieze. Finally, the southern angle of the 


1 Tn 1922 concrete was substituted for the slate. 

2 TIpaxruxé, 1904, p. 16. There is no report by Balanos on the work in 1904. Some pieces were added to the 
southern window and wall, and a new southern block to the architrave, near the end of the work. 

3 There is no mention of the Erechtheum in the Upaxzixé for 1905 and 1906. For the work in 1907 see Ipaxzixé, 
1907, pp. 64, 125-128 (report by Balanos), pl. I, containing photographs of the east end of the south wall and of the 
East Portico from the southeast, before and after restoration. ‘ 


078 THE ERECHTHEUM 


pediment was replaced.' All these stones and fragments were thoroughly secured by iron 
clamps and dowels set in lead and cement. The south wall was also in large part rebuilt at 
this time. This operation involved taking down the southeast anta which was somewhat 
out of plumb and needed repair in many places. Nearly all of the missing blocks of the 
wall were found, some whole, many in fragments. The latter were pieced together and the 
gaps filled with new marble, instead of the brick used by Pittakis.2 On account of the con- 
dition of the stones, especially on the inner face, it was impossible to secure a uniform 
thickness or, in general, to assign the stones to their proper courses. The wall was com- 
pleted by using about ten stones which had originally belonged to the north wall. This plan 
was adopted in preference to leaving the wall incomplete or employing new material, since 
the gap in the north wall was so great that these stones would not have sufficed to fill it. 
They can be distinguished by a difference in weathering. To repair the epicranitis, blocks 
and fragments were sought and pieced together until the desired length was obtained, 
without reference to the original position of the stones in the building, except in the case 
of the block at the west end of the wall (Fig. 33). 

The following year (1908) saw the completion of this work, as well as the restoration of 
the Porch of the Maidens. The foundation of the latter was strengthened by replacing 
damaged poros by new blocks of Piraeus stone. ‘The podium was repaired by inserting the 
fragments which had been found since 1846. The statues were removed, carefully mended, 
and the fragments properly joined and secured.’ In the epistyle the new blocks inserted in 
1846 were replaced, so far as possible, by the old fragments discovered since that time, and 
to secure firmly the damaged blocks two steel beams were sunk in the epistyle on the front 
(PLarEes IX, X) and one on each side (PLATE VII). The roof was completed by inserting 
the block which had fallen in 1826 and had been broken into five pieces. Since the terra- 
cotta cast and the restored statue next to it were not deemed strong enough to bear the 
weight of the epistyle, three vertical iron rods were inserted between the Maidens on the 
south side (PLatEes VI, XX XIII, 2). In this rebuilding the Caryatids were centred under 
the joints of the epistyle (PLATE X XVII, 9). The modern wall beneath the southwest 
corner of the main building was torn out and an iron column inserted to support the great 
stone (PLATE IV), thus revealing fully the peculiar construction at this point. The doorway 
from the Porch of the Maidens to the west room was repaired by the addition of pieces 
which had been broken out. The sides and bottom of the cistern under the western room 
were at last completely cleared, only a bit of the lining being left for the sake of record, the 


1 This little corner may belong to the pediment of the North Portico; see Ch. I, p. 27, note 2. 

2 The brick backing of the orthostates was not disturbed. 

’ How badly the fragments of the rear figure on the east side, restored by Andreoli (not Imhof as stated by 
Balanos), had been fitted may be seen from two photographs of the head and shoulders published by Balanos in 
Upaxrixa, 1908, pl. VI. The east half of the capital of this figure was not used in its restoration but was given to the 
second Maiden from the east on the south side; see Ch. I, p. 112 and Pharr XXXIX, 5, 6. 

* On the use of steel in this restoration, see Description of Plates, VII. 


HISTORY 579 


old foundations and the Acropolis rock on which they rested were exposed, and the damaged 
blocks in the northwest corner were replaced by a new wall (p. 15). In the course of the 
work on the south wall in 1907 certain stones belonging to the northeast anta had been 
found, and early in 1909 this anta was rebuilt by replacing the blocks in their correct 
order, which had been wholly disregarded by Pittakis in 1838. New material was used in 
courses 5 and 6, as these blocks had disappeared. The anta was thus complete with the ex- 
ception of the capital in the British Museum.! The work was brought to an end by taking 
out the late lining from the door leading into the Pandroseum from the North Portico.2 

Since then there have been few changes in the appearance of the Erechtheum. Early 
in 1912 the head of the terra-cotta copy of the Caryatid in the British Museum was broken, 
and since the whole statue was much discolored and weather beaten, it was replaced before 
the end of the year by a new copy in artificial stone presented by the British Museum. 
The somewhat striking and disturbing contrast between the blackened cast and the original 
marble statues, which had at times excited the wonder and even the admiration of enthusi- 
astic but ill-informed visitors, was thus removed. 

Early in 1914 the American School of Classical Studies at Athens was given permission 
to clear further certain parts of the building in order to obtain, if possible, more information 
on some points of construction which still remained obscure. As the results of this investi- 
gation have been incorporated in the preceding description, only a brief outline need be 
given here. 

In the interior, part of the earth beneath the iconostasis and the remaining bit of pave- 
ment in the southeast corner of the nave, which had not been disturbed by Botticher, was 
removed ‘without, however, affecting the pavement itself, which was supported during and 
after the operation by wooden planks.’ Here were found a marble foot, apparently from 
the frieze (Fig. 174), fragments of Mycenaean pottery, and a Mycenaean seal. A little 
earth was also removed in both the northeast and southeast corners, in order to lay bare 
the foundations and the rock below, and likewise in front of and beneath the threshold of 
the Diaconicum, where a Christian grave was discovered as well as traces of the presence 
at some time of a masonry pier, such as still exists in the north aisle below the threshold of 
the Prothesis. Further examination of the south aisle showed probable indications of simi- 
lar piers on the line of the Greek eastern cross-wall and also somewhat farther west (PLATE 

1 TIpaxrixd, 1908, pp. 56, 224-226 (report by Balanos), and pl. VI, containing two photographs of the head and 
shoulders of the Caryatid restored by Andreoli, the steel beam sunk in the epistyle of the Porch of the Maidens, and 
two views of the Erechtheum from the southwest, before and after restoration. Courses 4-11 of the northeast anta 
were in place on March 7, 1909, and courses 2 and 3 had been added by March 18 (Notebook of B. H. Hill). 

2 In Hpaxrixd, 1909, p. 59, it is stated that the work on the Erechtheum had been completed, but no details are 
given, and the report by Balanos refers only to the Propylaea. The lining of the small door in the North Portico was 
removed between the seventh and twenty-third of March, 1909 (Notebook of B. H. Hill). 

3 This earth had been held in place on the north and west by a rude support of stones from Helladic walls. This 
support may have been contemporary with the construction of the church, but is, perhaps, quite as likely to have been 


built by Botticher to preserve this corner from collapse. Unfortunately the planks, inserted in 1914, have since been 
removed, and the pavement has disintegrated to a considerable extent. 


580 THE ERECHTHEUM 


XXXI, 1).1 The investigation of the north aisle established definitely the Greek origin of 
the row of poros blocks set on edge behind the two upper steps of the north wall, and the 
previous existence here of a primitive wall, against and under which these poros blocks were 
laid Finally, in the eastern half of the south wall bits of the brick lining, inserted by 
Pittakis behind the orthostates, were picked out, and satisfactory evidence obtained that 


Figure 234. THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PANDROSEUM (MAY 30, 1918) 


the Greek backing of the orthostates was formed by two ordinary courses, and that conse- 
quently the south side of the East Cella, like the north, had no orthostates in the interior.’ 
East of the iconostasis in both Prothesis and Diaconicum what little remained of the 
pavement of the church was left undisturbed, since there was no reasonable probability 
that excavation here would yield any new information on the earlier conditions.* 


1 On these foundations for piers, see above, pp. 516, 569. 

2 On these remains, see above, Ch. I, pp. 6, 138-148. 8 On this construction, see above, Ch. I, p. 48. 

4 During these excavations sixteen fragments of inscriptions were found (Epigraphical Museum, Nos. 12351- 
12366) in the grave before the Diaconicum, near the west end of the north aisle wall, beneath the bit of pavement in 


~~” Se 


tie i Pee ee ee ee ee ee 


HISTORY 581 


On the outside, immediately north of the main building and east of the North Portico 
the poros foundation of the missing marble pavement (PLATE I) was again uncovered, and a 
revised plan prepared. On the west the area between the North Portico and the terrace wall 
of the Hecatompedon was re-excavated to the native rock, and the foundations of the west 
wall of the Erechtheum and of the north wall and pavement of the Pandroseum were care- 
fully examined. At the northeast corner of the precinct a very little undisturbed earth 
was found, containing prehistoric sherds in regular sequence, — Early Helladic just above 
the rock and Late Helladic (Mycenaean) near the top. After the work here was completed, 
the greater part of the area, where there were no ancient remains, was again filled with earth 
to approximately its former level, and on February 22, 1917, an olive tree was planted near 
the spot where the sacred olive may naturally be supposed to have stood. In 1918 the Greek 
Government replaced the blocks from the wall of the Pandroseum, including the stone 
with the water-channel, and supported them by steel rods bedded in concrete, which thus 
held the blocks in their original positions without concealing the ancient foundation behind 
(Fig. 234). At the same time, north of the west doorway, the lowest step and the paving 
slab below, which had sunk about 0.05 m., were raised to their original level, and a new 
sustaining wall built beneath them, solid in front, but composed of loose stones, laid with- 
out mortar, at the sides, so that they might easily be removed,.should it be desired in the 
future to examine the undisturbed layers of earth or the foundations behind (Fig. 38). 

It would seem that the Erechtheum has now been as completely reconstructed as the 
surviving remains permit, and that nothing which can contribute materially to its com- 
prehension lies concealed. Many questions still remain to which no final answer can yet 
be given, but it is not probable that much new material for their solution will be dis- 
covered in the building itself. The testing of proposed hypotheses and the establishment 
of reasonably certain and accepted conclusions can be carried to success only by the re- 
peated and detailed study of the existing material. This material, as a foundation for such 
critical study, we have tried to make available in the present work. 
the nave, and behind the brick lining of the orthostates. None of them is connected in any way with the Erechtheum. 
Most of them are mere scraps of marble containing only a few letters. One (No. 12353 = J.G., I’, 736) is appar- 
ently from an Archaic dedication. Five small fragments (Nos. 12355, 12357, 12360, 12363, 12358 = J.G., I, 324, 
i, k, l, m, n, ll. 49-54, 68-73) are from the accounts of the logistae, recording loans from the temples during the 
Archidamian war, and to the same document may belong Nos. 12359 (J. G., I?, 306) and 12362. Two large frag- 


ments (Nos. 12365, 12366) are from J. G., II, 959, which contained lists of crews of triremes; see Arch, Anz., XXX, 
1915, cols. 124 ff., especially 131, 132. (This note is based on a letter of C. W. Blegen.) 


APPENDIX A 


THE ERECHTHEUM IN WRITERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURIES 


A. Brrore 17501 


I. Cornetio Maent, 1674. Relazione della Citta d’Athene, colle Provincie dell’ Attica, Focia, 
Beozia, e Negroponte, ne’ tempi che furono queste passegiate da Cornelio M agni, Parmegiano, L’? Anno 
1674. E dallo stesso publicata ’ Anno 1688. Parma, 1688. Pp. 56, 57. 

“Incontrammo pit avanti [i.e., after leaving the Propylaea] un’ altro Tempio con un Vestibolo, 
che nella facciata viene in cambio di colonne, appoggiato da quattro statue femminili dagli Archi- 
tetti denominati Cariati scolpite con perfetto artificio, e vestite con panneggiamenti delicatissimi. 
Poco distante da queste incontrasi un’ altra fabbrica con qualche Colonna, e muraglie, che mostra 
essere stata un Tempio, benche angusto.”’ 


The same text is found on p. 497 of Quanto di pit curioso, e vago ha potuto raccorre Cornelio M agni nel secondo 
biennio da esso consumato in viaggi, e dimore per la Turchia. Seconda Parte. Parma, 1692. 


II. Sir Francis Vernon, 1675. A Letter to Mr. Oldenburg from Smyrna, Jan. 10, 1675-76. 
Printed in The Philosophical Transactions, XI, No. 124, pp. 575 ff., for April 24, 1676. Reprinted in 
John Ray, A Collection of Curious Travels and Voyages, London, 1693, Vol. II, p. 24; second edition, 
1738, Vol. II, p. 358. Also in Stuart and Revett, III, p. 4, col. 1, note. 

“There is a delicate Temple of the Conique [Ionique] order in the castle; whether of Pandrosos, 
or of whom, I cannot tell; but the work was most fine, and all the ornaments most accurately en- 
graven: 


(SSA Ua i iets oe a ee na 38 


Ill. Jacos Spon, 1676. Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Gréce,.et du Levant fait aux années 1675 
et 1676 par Jacob Spon... et George Wheler. Lyon, 1678. Vol. II, pp. 159, 160. 

After leaving the Parthenon: “Nous n’etimes pas fait beaucoup de chemin parmi les masures et 
les maisons des soldats de la garnison que nous trouvames le Temple d’Erechtée du coté qui regarde 
la Ville. On le connoit par deux indices qu’en donne Pausanias: l’un, qu’il est double, c’est-a-dire 
qu'il y a deux Temples joints ensemble; et l’autre, qu’on trouve 1A ce puits celebre d’eau salée, que 
nous ne pimes pas voir, parce qu’il y avoit dans le batiment ot il est enclos, des femmes logées, et 
qu’il n’y a que le maitre du Serrail qui y puisse entrer. Pausanias n’admire pas tant que cette eau 
soit salée, parce qu’il s’en trouve ailleurs de semblables, qu’une autre particularité qu’elle a. C’est 
que de son tems, quand le vent du Midy soufloit on y entendoit un bruit semblable 4 celuy des 
vagues de la mer. On nous assura que presentement il étoit presque 4 sec. Ces deux Temples sont 
d’ordre Ionique avec des colonnes canelées, et tout de marbre comme celuy de Minerve. Le grand 
a 63. pieds 4 de long, et 36.4 de large: Le petit 29. de long, et 21.3. pouces de large. 

“De l’autre c6té du Temple de Minerve, ou 4 son Midy, se voyent quelques masures anciennes 
et quelques statués de femmes enclavées dans un mur, qui étoient peut-étre les trois Graces, que 


Buereengyo of this Temple was. ....:..6.....200scee eee 67 \ Feet.” 


1 This section is believed to contain all the descriptions of the Erechtheum prior to the arrival in Athens of Stuart 
and Revett. 


586 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Socrate y avoit taillé: car les Autheurs remarquent expressement que quoy qu’on les representat ordi- 
nairement nués, neanmoins Socrate les avoit fait habillées, comme sont celles-cy. Ce pouvoit étre 
la le Temple de Minerve Poliade, c’est-a-dire protectrice de la Ville, et de la Nymphe Pandrose.”’ 


Same text, Amsterdam, 1679; II, pp. 122 f.: La Haye, 1724; II, pp. 92 f. 


IV. Grorce WHELER, 1676. A Journey into Greece by George Wheler, Esq. In Company of Dr. 
Spon of Lyons. London, 1682. Pp. 364, 365. 

‘Going therefore some way further, amongst the Buildings, and Ruins, on the North-side of the 
Temple of Minerva, we came to the Temple of Hrictheus, It is known to be that, by two Marks out 
of Pausanias: First, Because he saith, It is a Double Building, one bigger than the other, as this yet 
remains. The lesser one, by which the Entrance is to the other, is Twenty nine foot long, and Twenty 
one foot, three inches broad. The bigger is Sixty three foot, and a half long, and Thirty six foot 
broad. Its roof is sustained by Ionick Pillars, chanelled; but the Chapters are something different 
from any I have seen of that Order; and seem to be a kind of mixture between it, and the Dorick 
Order. The other Mark is, that, as Pawsanzas saith, There is a Well of Salt-Water in it; which he 
makes no wonder of, because there are many such in Inland Places, a great way from the Sea; as at 
Aphrodicaea in Caria, &c. All that he thinks worth writing of it, was, That it made a noise, like the 
Waves of the Sea, when the South-Wind bloweth. We could not have permission to go into the 
Temple, to see it; because the Turk that lives in it, hath made it his Seraglio for his Women; and 
was then abroad. But we were assured, That the Well is now almost dry. On the South-side of the 
Temple of Minerva, we saw some antient Ruins; where are to be seen some Statues of Women, in the 
Walls; which my Comrade thinks, may be the Graces, which Socrates hath made there: Because 
Authors expressly say, That although the Graces used ordinarily to be represented naked; yet 
Socrates made his to appear clothed, as these here are. ’Tis like also, here was the Temple of Minerva 
Poliades; that is, Protectrice of the City; and the Temple of the Nymph Pandrosa; but no Remains 
of them are now to be seen.” 


V. Giacomo Mityavu VerRNeEDA, 1687. Pianta del Castello d’ Acropolis e Citta d’Athene. Tavola 
delle cose piv nottabili conteute |sic] nella Pianta del Castello! 

““N. Gran deposito di polvere. 

“R. Tempio d’Ericteus, ove si vedono ancora nel Prospetto sei Colonne di 20 piedi d’altezza 
Yuna d’ordine ionico con Architravo, Freggio, e cornise, attorno, il di cui soffito é tutto di marmo 
di bellissima struttura, havendo i pezzi pit di 20. piedi di lunghezza, quali servono di travadura, 
sostenuti dalle sud‘ Colonne che formano tre lati d’ un quadrato lungo, havendo nel quarto lato 
la mura della Corte, nella quale si vede una bellissima cornise, et una Porta adornata di fogliame 
et altro basso Riglievo di finissima mano; A fronte di detta Corte o scala si vedono ancora altre sei 
Colone simili alle sudette. 

“S. Altro Tempio di Minerva Poliades, cioé Protettrice della Citta, e della ninfa Pandrosa, le 
mura del quale sono sostenute dai quatro Statue di marmo, quali rapresentono le Gratie, che Socrate 
fece far vestite, per burlarsi di quelli che le hanno rappresentate nude.” 

The manuscript in Vienna and the plate in Fanelli (App. B, I) differ slightly in spelling and punctuation, but 


the only significant variations in text are in R, line 4, where Fanelli reads “sostenuto,” and in line 6, where the 
Vienna MS. reads ‘‘corte o sala” and Fanelli “corte e scala.” 


VI. Rinatpo pe ta Ruz, 1687. Relatione d’alcwne principali Antichita d’Atene. Del Sig’ 
Rinaldo de la Rue. Trovandosi egli stesso all’ acquisto della medesima cittd, nella campagna dell’ anno 


* Manuscript, Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Codd. Ital. Cl. VII, No. 94, fol. 115. Cf. Appendix B, I, p. 601, 
note 4, for full title and description. The Acropolis from this plan is reproduced in Figure 216. 


APPENDIX A 587 


1687, in qualita di Bombista. Published by F. von Duhn, Arch. Zig. XXXVI, 1878, pp. 55-65.! 
Pp. 59, 60. 

“A man sinistra di questo tempio [i-e., the Parthenon] si vede un altro piccolo tempio, secondo 
alcuni di Minerva zod.ados, altri dicono che fosse il palazzo d’Eristeo; non restano di questo altro 
che i muri; questo tempio ha di longhezza 63 piedi e 3, e di larghezza 363, la porta é di 22 d’altezza 
molto ben lavorata; a canto a questo palazzo é un altro tempietto con sei colonne d’ordine Ionico 
con cornici molto delicate, i travi sono di marmo tutti d’un pezzo di 20 piedi di lunghezza, ha il 
tempio 29 piedi in lungo, e 20 in largo, si dice che fosse dedicato a Nettuno, altri vogliono a 
Pandrosa. Vicino v’ é un’ altra fabrica con quattro figure di donna con una bellissima chioma 
sino alla cintura, queste rappresentano le quattro figlie d’Eristeo Re d’Atene, cioe Procris, Cerusa, 
Ketonia et Oritia chiamate Giacintides.” 


VU, A. ALEssANDRO LocaTELLt, ca. 1687-1688. Racconto historico della Veneta Guerra in 
Levante, Diretia dal Valore del Serenissimo Principe, Francesco Morosini. Opera postuma di Alessan- 
dro Locatelli. Colonia [Parma], 1691. Parte II, pp. 33, 34. 


After a description of the Parthenon: “Ed 4 man destra vi sono il Tempio di Minerva Puliados, 
nella facciata del quale sono quattro statue intiere di Donne, che furono le figlie d’Hericleo VI. Ré 
degli Atheniesi nominate Prieris, Creusa, Hecthania, ed Octorichia; quello di Netunno d’eccellente 
struttura con dieci Colonne d’ordine Ionico ne Capitelli, nelle quali vi erano incastrate pietre pretiose, 
attrovandosi ancora alcuni frammenti di Lapis Lazoli, Corniole, ed altre simili con le travature di 
marmo d’un solo pezzo, ed all’ intorno un fregio di finissimo intaglio, non scorgendosi nel detto 
Castello quasi tutto distrutto da vicendevoli Dominii di varie Nationi altre rimarcabili antichita.”’ 


VII, B. Galleria di Minerva, overo Notizie Universali ecc. Venezia, 1696. Vol. I, pp. 382 ff. 
‘Descrittione d’Atene mandata dal Sig. N.N. al Signor Girolamo Albrizzi.’ 


P. 385.— “A man dritta é il tempio di Minerva Poliados, e nella faccia di quello 4. statue di 
Donne intiere, le quali sono le figure [szc| d’Erituo 6. Ré d’Athene, Procri, Clausa, Zetonia, Ortho- 
ritia, Cat destra del Tempio di Minerva Poliados, é il picciolo Tempio di Nettuno di eccellente 
struttura con 10. colonne d’ordine Ionico, e nel capitello erano pietre preziose, si vedono ancora 
del Lapis Lazuli, e delle pietre corniolle, ed altre pietre. Le travatture sono di marmo tutto d’un 
pezzo, ed intorno al Tempio é un frigio delicatissimo, Nel Castello non si vedono altre antichita 
essendo tutto distrutto.”’ 


VIII. Francesco FANELLI, 1707. Atene Attica, descritta da’ suot Principii sino all’ acquisto fatto 
dall’ Armi Venete nel 1687. Venezia, 1707. Pp. 321, 322. 


“DEL TEMPIO DI ERETTEO. 


“1. Non molto distante dal Tempio predetto [the Parthenon] s’incontrano gli vestiggi di quello 
di Eretteo secondo li confronti di Pausania delle mura ineguali, e della sorgente d’acqua marina, 
6 sia pozzo, che si trova, quantunque sia molto distante dal Mare, il che non parve stravagante 
all’ Auttore predetto, havendone trovati molti consimili in siti diversi. 

“2. Osservabile perd si rende il suo naturale effetto, quando il vento soffia dall’ Ostro, perche 
con quello si sentiva il mormorio dell’ onde del Mare, ma essendo al presente ridotto il Tempio al 
servizio di un deposito di polvere, non si puo certificar la relazione, quale da aleuni Nazionali viene 
limitata, asserendo, che detta sorgente di acqua sia molto diminuita. 


1 He cites the manuscript as under “Filza LVI, No. 17: Notizie di diverse corti d’Europa” in the Archivio Nazio- 
nale in the Uffizi, Florence. This reference has not been sufficient to identify the manuscript, and Von Duhn’s text 
is reprinted here without collation. 


588 THE ERECHTHEUM 


“3. La lunghezza di questo é terminata da ventinove piedi, e da ventiuno la sua larghezza: 
é fabricato di marmi bianchi, sostenuto da colonne di ordine Ionico’alquanto composte di Dorico 
ne capitelli, posano sopra questi gran travi di Marmo disposti 4 sostenere il soffitto formato altresi 
di gran pezzi di Marmo. 

“A Pid che scielta rissalta la scoltura, che adorna la cornice del Portone che apre l’ingresso al 
Salone spacioso, il di cui prospetto viene reso maestoso da sei colonne di un solo pezzo dell’ ordine 
stesso. 

“5. Dalla parte opposta resta nobilitato da due fenestroni chiusi da gelosie di Marmo di un 
solo pezzo lavorate da scalpello artifitiosamente esquisito. 


DEL TEMPIO DI MINERVA 
e della Ninfa Pandrosa 


“1, Contiguo A detto Salone dalla parte dell’ Ostro si trovano gli avvanzi di altro Tempio, per 
’opinione Universale eretto 4 Minerva Poliade, cioé Protettrice della Citta, ad [szc] alla Ninfa 
Pandrosa, nelle mura del quale, che sono rimaste in piedi, si vedono alcuni nicchi con Statue delle 
tre Gratie vestite conforme il sentimento di Socrate 1 qual condannava l’abuso di rappresentarle 
ignude contro il costume degli antichi, e perche queste furono considerate dagli Ateniesi fighuole di 
Giove, ed Eurinome, che significa fertilité de campi, ed abbondanza de frutti, quali dalla humanita 
conseguire non si possono senza l’ajuto di Giove, da cui dipendono la serenita del Cielo, il soffiare 
de Venti, e li rinfreschi delle pioggie fecondanti la Terra, le collocarono nel Tempio di questa Dea 
Protettrice, accid impetrassero dal Motore Superno il necessario sostentamento alla Patria. 

““2. Pare poi difficile potersi indagare, perche egualmente 4 questa Dea, ed alla Ninfa sia stato 
consacrato il Tempio, atteso che dagli antichi le Ninfe sono state considerate Mortali; tuttavia 
perche non si puo credere, che li Gentili habbiano operato senza mistero nelle cose della Religione, 
mi persuado habbiano dimostrata tale veneratione alle Ninfe, perche se ben mortali, secondo le 
opinioni loro vivevano il corso quasi innumerabile d’anni; oltre che edificarono li Tempii agli Eroi, 
come praticarono li Romani ad honore de Cesari; ma quello pare pit probabile si 6, che non solo 
credevano le Ninfe fatidiche, ma inspiranti ancora in alcuni lo spirito della Profezia,? percid come 
dalla Dea bramavano la protettione della Patria, cosi dalle Ninfe la predizione de mali futuri per 
ripararli * 6 l’estro almeno di profetizarli, il che é quanto si scorge nelle parti interne del predetto 
recinto.”’ 


IX. Jonn Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, 1738. A Voyage performed by the late Earl of Sandwich 
round the Mediterranean in the years 1738 and 1739. Written by Himself. To which are prefixed 
Memozrrs of the noble Author’s Life by John Cooke, M. A. London, 1799. Pp. 64-66. 


“‘On the north side of the Parthenon are two other temples, which agree exactly with the descrip- 
tion given by Pausanias of those of Minerva Polias, and the nymph Pandrosa; to whom as the favor- 
ite of their goddess, the Athenians paid particular honours. The temple of Minerva, which is the 
largest of the two, is, like all the public edifices yet mentioned, built entirely of white marble. The 
front is adorned with four columns, and two pilasters of the Ionic order. The pilasters are at the 
two corners; and in the three spaces between the pillars are as many windows, which is a thing 
rather unusual among the ancient temples. There is no space between the pillars and the wall, they 
being joined together; but on the part opposite to this front, which is formed by six columns, there 
seems either to have been a portico, or as if the building had been open at that end, the pillars not 
being joined together. This temple is of a different form from any of those already mentioned, being 
in length not twice its breadth; it is sixty-three feet one way, and thirty-six the other, the walls 
standing entire, and little of it wanting except the roof, of which no remains are to be seen. The 


1 “Natalis Com. Mytho. 1. 4.” 2 “ Pausania nella Focide.” 3 “Natalis Comi. Mytho. I. 5.” 


APPENDIX A 589 


workmanship is, I think, the nicest I ever saw; the flutings of the pillars, the volutes, the cornices, 
and all the other ornaments, being as neatly finished as if they were done in ivory. The pillars are 
placed upon pedestals, and are about twenty feet high with plinths and bases; the custom of leaving 
them out being confined by the Greeks to the Doric order alone ; the Corinthian and Ionic being 
never to be seen without them. On the north side of this is the small temple of the nymph Pandrosa, 
joined to it on one side, and on the three others adorned with ten columns of the same order and 
proportions. It is a room thirty feet in length, and twenty-three in breadth. Opposite to this, 
joined to the south side of the greater temple, is another square little room; the roof of which, being 
still entire, is supported by five caryatides, the sixth being wanting. This to me seems to have been 
the habitation of the Kavjdopa, or basket carriers, who, according to Pausanias, were two virgins, 
maintained the whole year in the service of Minerva. These virgins, the night before the festival 
of the goddess, which was celebrated yearly, entering into the temple, were to receive from the 
priestess two baskets, which they were to set upon their heads, and carry them to the mouth of 
a grotto, (neither they nor the priestess knowing what the baskets contained,) where they were to 
leave them, and receive two others, which they were to bring back to the temple. After this the two 
virgins were dismissed, and fresh ones constantly taken into their room; who during their employ- 
ment lived close to the temple; and, I think, not improbably in this room, since I cannot give any 
more plausible guess at the use it has been put to. The workmanship of this is answerable to the 
rest of the building, being extremely fine, and worthy to be admired, as it has suffered but little 
from the injuries of time. The form of the whole will be more easily conceived by the plan.” 


X. Ricuarp Pococxs, 1740. A Description of the East and some other Countries. London, 1745. 
Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 163, 164; pl. LX VIII. 


“About sixty paces to the north of the temple of Minerva in the Acropolis of Athens, is a temple 
D,' which is supposed to be the Erectheion; a plan and view of it may be seen in the sixty-eighth 
plate; Pausanias says it was a double temple; what now remains seems to be only one part of it; 
the building is of a very beautiful Ionic order fluted within eight inches of the capital, which space 
is carved with bass reliefs of flowers; the cushion of the base is fluted horizontally, as described in 
Caria; the pilasters at the end of the wall appear as if they were Doric, but in reality are only the 
cornish between the pillars continued round on the pilasters, and below it the relief of flowers is 
likewise continued on them: The building extends in length from east to west, the other part seeming 
to have been to the east; at the west end there is a small door, not in the middle; and above, it is 
adorned with Ionic pilasters, which are about three-quarters of a circle; at the east end are six pillars 
of a portico with steps up to them; it appears that there was a wall to the west of them; and it is to 
be supposed that the west end of the east temple corresponded to this, at a proper distance to the 
east; the room seems to have been divided into three parts; to the western part on the south side 
was a portico from which there was a door now almost buried under ground; this portico consisted 
of a colonade of cariatides four in front, and one more on each side, as it is to be supposed, though 
there is now only one on the west side; they are very fine statues of women, with beautiful drapery, 
and their tresses hanging down in a fine manner; they are seven feet long; each of them has over 
its head two quarter rounds adorned with eggs and darts; these members are round; over them there 
is a square broad fillet which supports the entablature, and if there were six more such statues to 
the other temple, they might be the nine Muses, and the three Graces, unless they might be the 
daughters of Erectheus, who were so renowned for their virtue: On the north side there is a portico 
of four pillars in front, and one more on each side: The whole is built of marble, the walls being 
two feet thick, and the pillars of this beautiful building are all of hewn stone. It is remarkable that 
there was a well of salt water in this temple, concerning which they had some fabulous stories.”’ 


1 The letter refers to Pococke’s plan of the Acropolis, pl. LXV. 


590 THE ERECHTHEUM 


XI. Cuarues Perry, 1740. A View of the Levant: particularly of Constantinople, Syria, Egypt, 
and Greece. In which Their Antiquities, Government, Politics, Maxims, Manners, and Customs (with 
many other Circumstances and Contingencies) are attempted to be Described and Treated on. In Four 
Parts. London, 1748. P. 504. 


“Of the Temple of ERICTEUS. 


“‘Of this Edifice there, at present, remains no more than 14 of its Pillars standing, which are of 
the Doric Order, with a Mixture of the Ionic. Indeed the Extent of the whole Fabric (according to 
what we can discover by its present Remains) was but 29 Feet and an half in Length, and 24 Feet broad. 

“This antient Fabric is contiguous to another of the like Style and Antiquity with itself. This 
too is called a Temple, but we could not learn, from our Conductors, what Name it went by. 


“Of the Temple of Minerva Poliada, and of the Nymph Pandrosa. 


“Not far from the last-mentioned Edifice is another antient Temple, of greater Extent and 
Magnitude, which, as ’tis said, was built and dedicated to Minerva Poliada, and the Nymph Pan- 
drosa. 

“This Edifice, at present, exhibits to View several beautiful Marble Pillars, which are chanell’d, 
and of the Jonic Order. Three of these Pillars have expressed, upon their Front Parts, the Repre- 
sentation of the Three Graces. ’Tis said, that the Greeks, in very early Times, used to represent the 
Graces naked; but these (on the contrary) are represented habited, or cloathed; which (as the Tra- 
dition goes) was intirely owing to the Modesty of Socrates.” 


B. From 1750 ro 1803! 


XII. James Stuart and Nicnuoias Revert, 1751-1753. The Antiquities of Athens. Vol. JI, 
London, 1789. Chap. II, pp. 16 ff. 

P.16.— “To the north of the Parthenon, at the distance of about one hundred il fifty feet, are 
the remains of three contiguous Temples. That towards the east was called the Erechtheum; to the 
westward of this, but under the same roof, was the Temple of Minerva, with the title Polias, as 
protectress of the City; adjoining to which on the south side is the Pandrosium, so named because 
it was dedicated to the nymph Pandrosus, one of the daughters of Cecrops.”’ 

P. 18.— “These Temples are now in a very ruinous condition. Those of Erechtheus and Minerva 
have at present no roof or covering of any kind. The wall which separated them, and that by which 
the Prondus, or passage to the Pandrosium, was parted off from the temple of Minerva, are so 
demolished, that hardly any traces of them remain, except where they joined the side walls. The 
pavements are so encumbered with large blocks of marble and variety of rubbish, as to render the 
inside almost impassable, and a more particular disquisition there fruitless. The Pandrosium, though 
it has suffered least, is filled up to a great height in the same manner, and one of the Caryatides is 
wanting. We found the Portico of Minerva walled up, and being a magazine of military stores, all 
entrance into it was denied us.” 


XIII. Ricnarp CHanpier, 1765-1766. Travels in Greece: or an Account of a Tour made at the 
Expense of the Society of Dilettanti. Oxford, 1776.2 Pp. 52 ff. 


1 This section contains a selection from the sources for the history and exploration of the Erechtheum from the 
time of Stuart and Revett to the expedition of Lord Elgin. The complete list of authorities for this period will be 
found in Appendix C, 

> Only so much of Chandler’s discussion of the Erechtheum is here printed as relates to its condition and appear- 
ance. The omitted portions are chiefly recapitulations or interpretations of Pausanias and other ancient authorities. 
The corrections by Revett are taken from his copy of the Travels in the British Museum: see Chap. V, p. 543, note 1. 


APPENDIX A 591 


P. 52. — “The building was double, a partition-wall dividing it into two temples, which fronted 
different ways. One was the temple of Neptune Erectheus, the other of Minerva Polias. The latter 
was entered by a square portico connected with a marble skreen, which fronts towards the propyléa. 
The door of the cell was on the left hand, and at the farther end of the passage was a door leading 
down into the Pandroséum, which was contiguous.” ! 

P. 54.— “The ruin of the Erechthéum is of white marble, the architectural ornaments of very 
exquisite workmanship, and uncommonly curious. The columns of the front of the temple of Nep- 
tune are standing with the architrave; and also the skreen and portico of Minerva Polias, with a 
portion of the cell retaining traces of the partition-wall. The order is Ionic. An edifice revered by 
antient Attica, as holy in the highest degree, was in 1676 the dwelling of a Turkish family; and is 
now deserted and neglected; but many ponderous stones and much rubbish must be removed, before 
the well and trident would appear. The former, at least, might probably be discovered. The portico 
is used as a powder-magazine; but we obtained permission to dig and to examine the outside. The 
door-way of the vestibule is walled up, and the soil risen nearly to the top of the door-way of the 
Pandroséum.”’ 2 

P. 55. —“The Pandroséum is a small, but very particular building, of which no satisfactory idea 
can be communicated by description. The entablature is supported by women, called Caryatides. 
... The images were in number six, all looking toward the parthenon. The four in front, with that 
next to the propyléa, remain, but mutilated, and their faces besmeared with paint. The soil is risen 
almost to the top of the basement on which they are placed. This temple was open or latticed 
between the statues; and in it also was a stunted olive-tree, with an altar of Jupiter Hercéus standing 
Moder it°° 

The acquisition of the Chandler Inscription is thus described (pp. 57, 58): ‘‘Another marble, 
which has been engraved at the expense of the society of DiLeTranti, was discovered at a house 
not far from the temple of Minerva Polias, placed, with the inscribed face exposed, in the stairs. 
The owner, who was branded for some unfair dealing with the appellative Jefiut, or the Jew, prefixed 
to his name, seeing me bestow so much labour in taking a copy, became fearful of parting with the 
original under its value. When the bargain was at length concluded, we obtained the connivance 
of the Disdar, his brother, under an injunction of privacy, as otherwise the removal of the stone 
might endanger his head, it being the property of the Grand Signior. Mustapha delivered a ring, 
which he commonly wore, to be shown to a female black slave, who was left in the house alone, as 
a token; and our Swiss, with assistants and two horses, one reputed the strongest in Athens, arrived 

at the hour appointed, and brought down the two marbles, for which he was sent, unobserved; the 
Turks being at their devotions in the mosque, except the guard at the gate, who was in the secret. 
The large slab was afterwards rendered more portable by a mason.” 4 


XIV. Lovts-FrRANGcoIs-SEBASTIAN FAUvEL, 1786—1822.° 

1. Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 157. Choiseul to Fauvel, Constantinople, August 2, 1786; received 
August 16, 1786. 

The firman for which Fauvel has asked will be sent shortly: ‘Je voudrais bien qu’il put vous 
servir de prétexte pour enlever quelques beaux Bas-Reliefs; puisque vous étes si bien avec le disdar, 
cela devoit vous étre facile; pourquoi ne pourries-vous pas enlever une Cariatide, s’il y en a une 


1 Revett’s notes: line 2, “One”; That toward the west [sic]. 3, “a marble skreen which fronts;”’ the front. 

2 Revett’s notes: line 1, ‘‘white’’; pentelic. 3, ‘‘skreen’”’; west front. 9, “vestibule”; portico. 

5 Revett’s note: line 5, “or latticed,”’ is erased. 

4 For the damage unconsciously caused by this last operation, see Chap. IV, p. 281. 

5 Numbers 1-12 are in the Département des Manuscrits, Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. The spelling of Fauvel 
has been generally retained, but accents, which are conspicuous by their absence in his manuscripts, have been added, 
in accordance with the practice of Omont, B. Soc. Ant. Fr., 1900, pp. 240-245. 


592 THE ERECHTHEUM 


bien conservée?”’ In a postscript: “Je veux bien donner 20 piastres pour qu’on ne rebatisse point 
le mur des Cariatides.”’ 

2. Fonds fr. 22877, part 1, fol. 27. Foucherot 2 to Fauvel, Paris, October 3, 1786. Instructions 
and inquiries about Greek topography and monuments. 

“Vous avez sans doute rapporté le fond du pavé du temple d’Erectée avec une hauteur que nous 
avons connue et mesurée afinque je la place avec mes plans *; avez-vous trouvé le puits?”” In margin 
a note by Fauvel, ‘“‘Mesurer et rapporter avec les bases de l’E.”” (See also No. 4, below.) 

3. Now. acgq. fr. 7558, fol. 1 (Omont, B. Suc. Ant. Fr., 1900, p. 240). Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, 
February 15, 1787. 

“Je m’empresse de profiter de l’occasion .. . pour vous donner avis . . . de ’embarquement de 
tous mes platres, 4 l’exception cependant de la Cariatide qui n’a pas pu étre montée ayant été obligé 
de donner tous mes soins A l’encaissement et au transport difficile des autres objets. .. . La cariatide 
me reste. Elle est montée mais pas entiérement terminée. Je la metterai en deux caisses que je 
ferai porter au port chez M* Kairac ov elles attendront une occasion. J’en ferai de méme pour 
quelques autres platres qui j’ai encore 4 prendre.” 

4. Nouv. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 4 f. Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, February 20, 1787. 

“Je fais retourner les débris qui couvrent les derriéres du temple de Minerve pour dire 4 M”* 
Foucherot de quel maniére il se termine. Je dois aussi découvrir un des piédestaux des Propilles que 
n’a fait que deviner M. le Roy.‘ Je me suis contenté, M" le Comte, d’avoir trouvé le pavé du temple 
d’Erectée contre toute vraisemblance 4 huit pieds six pouces au dessous du niveau des bases des 
colonnes de l’est, de niveau avec les 4 grandes faisant face au nord. Ayant trouvé ce pavé autant 
surchargé de décombres je n’al pas cru sans votre consentement devoir chercher le puit dont parle 
Pausanias. I] en pourroit couter 40 piastres. J’ai proposé cette dépense aux habitans du chateau 
étant les seuls qui y ayent intérét. Le Selictar devoit donner des hommes mais la malheureuse catas- 
trophe du fils du Disdar a été un empéchement a ce projet. . . . La cariatide est montée. Son volume 
m’oblige de la couper, ne pouvant sans risque la transporter au Pirée; lA je la metterai dans son 
entier et l’encaisserai solidement ne devant plus voyager que par mer et étant un leger fardeau pour 
les chaloupes.®> Elle est creuse et bien assemblée.”’ 

5. Now. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 9, 10. Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, October 12, 1788. 

“Vous savez, Monsieur L’ambassadeur, que dans mon dernier voyage je fis fouiller dans le 
temple d’Erectée, que je trouvai le pavé antique 4 9 pieds plus bas que les bases du cété de Vest. 
L’envie de trouver le puit dont je leur [i.e., les Tures du chateau] avois parlé d’aprés Pausanias leur 
fit continuer. Ils y firent travailler par corvée sans succés. Ce temple avoit été défiguré de toute 


1 On this wall see Chap. V, pp. 550 f. 

2 The letter is unsigned, but Fauvel’s letter to Choiseul of February 20, 1787 (No. 4) shows that it is from Fou- 
cherot. Part of this or a similar letter accompanies a plan of the Propylaea among Fauvel’s drawings, Bibl. Nat., 
Estampes, G b. 15, b, fol. 27. 

’ The plans were, of course, for Choiseul’s book, but Foucherot was at this time helping Barbié Du Bocage in the 
preparation of his Atlas for Barthélemy’s Voyage du jewne Anacharsis (edition of 1788, preface, pp. v, vi). The 
Erechtheum, however, does not appear in the Atlas. 

4 The inquiry about “les derriéres du temple de Minerve”’ is in the letter of October 3, 1786 (No. 2) just before 
the question about the Erechtheum. It related to the arrangements in the pronaos, which were concealed by the 
débris of the apse. The bases of the Ionic columns of the Propylaea seem called for by the plan and letter among the 
drawings; see note 2 above. 

® The plan for repacking the cast of the Caryatid was not carried out, for in the list of cases “embarqué abord du 
Capitaine Roussel. Expédié par M. Gaspary pour Marseille” (Now. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 3; Omont, l. c., p. 243), we find: 

“1. Le bas de la Cariatide et son chapiteau en 3 piaces. 

2. Le haut de la figure précédente avec moulures et ornements du temple d’Erectée. 
6. Chapiteaux du temple de Minerve, grand ordre, du plus grand ordre de celui d’Erectée, du petit ordre du 
temple de Thesée, les moulures du dessus et dessous des bas-reliefs.”’ 


APPENDIX A 593 


maniére par les chrétiens. Le pavé que j’avois trouvé est celui qu’ils firent. L’antique étoit au 
niveau des bases comme A tous les autres temples. Ce qui se voit des murs depuis le niveau de ces 
bases jusqu’au pavé actuel est fondation, partie marbre partie pierres brutes. II s’est trouvé 
employé dans les fabriques modernes, qui y furent faites, de belles inscriptions fort longues et en 
eit i iaiee Je n’en ai encore copié qu’une. Je les tiens enterrées pour éviter qu’elles ne se 
gitent. 


6. Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 161. Choiseul to Fauvel, Constantinople, November 4, 1788; received 
December 1, 1788. 

“Ne pourries vous pas, toujours sous prétexte de chercher le puits du temple d’Erechtée, enlever 
les belles inscriptions qui ont été employées dans ce pavé fait par les Chrétiens. Vous mettries 
d’autres pierres 4 la place. Elles doivent étre fort curieuses.” 

7. Now. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 11. Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, November 21, 1788. 

“J’ai moulé le pendant de la cariatide qui est déja & Marseille. Pendant le mauvais tems qui 
commence 4 se faire sentir je travaille 4 la monter et 4 mes cartes.” 

8. Fonds fr. 22877, part 1, fol. 23. Extracts from a summary account by Fauvel of his doings in 
Athens in 1788-1789. This memorandum is not dated, but seems to have been written soon after the 
events described, as it contains no reference to the disposition of his collections. There are a few 
corrections or notes in Fauvel’s later hand. 

“Le défaut de platre m’avoit empéché jusqu’A présent de travailler au chateau. Je n’ai pu 
mouler qu’une Cariatide et 5-6 piéces des bas-reliefs de Minerve. Le mauvais tems en Décembre 
m’a empéché de continuer. J’ai fait voler 3 troncons de colonnes vert antique et je les ai fait 
jetter par un Ture du haut des murs de la citadelle sur un tas de fumier. Le 12 Décembre jai fait 
aussi glisser le long des murs du cété du monument de trasillus un métope un homme et un centaure 
mutilés. Un ouragand l’avoit fait tomber. C’étoit en trois piéces qui se rejoint. J’ai pris... 2 
inscriptions ! du temple d’Hrectée. . . . J’ai fait faire quelques fouilles au chateau et j’ai decouvert 
tout le petit temple des Cariatides.? J’en ai mesuré toutes les parties. J’y ai trouvé un petit escalier 
qui communique dans le vestibule ow sont les trois fenétres et dans lequel on entroit par le portique 
du nord qui est aujourd’hui magazin 4 poudre. Le platfond du portique existe dans son entier... . 
Le 9 Février j’ai enlevé du temple d’Erectée une colonne de vert antique de 9 pieds de long. Je l’ai 
fait transporter le méme jour au Pirée. Le 16 j’ai enlevé un trongon des mémes colonnes verd 
antique de 4 pieds de long et une inscription sur une partie de piédestal.2 Ces deux piéces ont été 
charriés au port en deux jours. J’ai moulé une trés grande inscription trouvée dans les ruines du 
temple d’Erectée qu’il m’étoit trop difficile de copier sur la place. Il ne m’a pas été possible de 
Vacheter; au reste elle n’est pas entiére et elle est presque effacée.” 

9. Nowy. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 12 (Omont, l.c., p. 244). Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, April 26, 1789. 
This letter announces his intention to leave at once on account of an outbreak of plague, and gives a 
summary list of objects belonging to Choiseul which he has left with various people in Athens. 

“Vous avez en outre une piéce des bas-reliefs du temple de Minerve,‘ que j’ai fait scier et mettre 
chez M. Kairac au Pirée, ainsi qu’une colonne de vert antique entiére et une bonne partie d’une 
autre, un bas relief de deux figures plus grands que nature que j’ai fait ammincer [sic] et 2 inscrip- 
tions.® Je laisse 4 Athénes chez M' Giraud negt francais 3 troncons de colonnes vert antique et une 


1 The figure 2 is written in pencil at the beginning of the line, and there is an illegible word written in pencil 
over a figure 2 in ink at the end of the preceding one. See below, App. B, VI, p. 610, note 7. 

2 A drawing of the Porch of the Maidens is dated January 15, 1789; Bibl. Nat., Estampes, G b. 15, a, fol. 17. 

3 This stone, according to a “Cahier des Inscriptions,” contained two inscriptions. See App. B, VI, p. 610, 
note 9. 

4 This was the slab from the frieze of the Parthenon now in the Louvre. 

5 These seem to be the two inscriptions on one stone found in February. See No. 8, note 3, above. 


594 THE ERECHTHEUM 


inscription.!_ Au couvent une Cariatide montée et encaissée, quelques platres du temple de Minerve, 
... aussi le métope du temple de Minerve en trois caisses,” etc.’ 

10. Supplément grec 560, fol. 38. A memorandum on the same sheet with two other items dated 
in 1791 and 1793. 

“Jai embarqué sur la corvette la Brune commandée par M. Terras* 14 caisses marquées “C G” 
renfermant des plAtres moulés sur les bas reliefs du temple de Minerve. Il y en a 12 grandes depuis 
le No. 2... . Les numéros 10 et 11 sont restés 4 Athénes n’ayant pu étre transportés 4 tems.”’ In the 
margin at the beginning is written “le 9 aoust, 1791.” 

This shipment was also recorded by Fauvel in later memoranda, two versions of which are in his 
papers. In both he dates the shipment from memory in 1790, and adds that it contained also frag- 
ments of green marble columns. In the second of these versions the description is: “plusieurs trongons 
de colonnes de vert antique que j’avois trouvés dans les ruines du temple d’Erectée 4 Athénes — je 
n’ai pu savoir si cet envoi est parvenu.”’ 4 

11. The shipment by L’Arabe. 

a. Fonds fr. 22871, fol. 155. Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, 7 Prairial, An XI (May 27, 1803); 
Fauvel’s rough draft. 

“Jai la satisfaction aujourd’hui de vous annoncer que j’ai tout embarqué sur la corvette l’Arabe, 
commé® par le lieutnt de vaisseau Berthelin qui doit effectuer son retour 4 |’Orient. . . . Je vous ai 
embarqué tout ce qui étoit resté ici sur le sceau de la république aprés avoir procédé juridiquement 
A la levée des scelles.”’ . 

The reverse of fol. 155 contains a rough list of the boxes and their contents, among them the 
following pieces from the Erechtheum: 

“No. 1. Grande caisse contenant une des Cariatides 4 platre.” 

“94, 25. 3 troncons de colonnes vert antique de 3°, 3, et 2.” 

There is no mention in the list of any inscriptions from the Erechtheum, though the marbles 
seem given in detail. 

b. Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 71. A note from Lieutenant Berthelin to Fauvel, ‘Rade du Pirée le 7 
Praireal [szc], an 11.” 

“Je viens de recevoir 4 bord deux caisses qui, jointe aux vingt-quatre que vous aves envoyées ces 
jours passés, font la quantité de vingt-six caisses qui, suivant votre avis, contienent des morceaux 
antiques. J’ai aussi recu trois pieces de marbres, trois morceaux de colonnes et un basin de méme 
espéces. Aussitét mon arrivée a L’orient je ferai les démarches necessaires pour que le ministre 4 qui 
vous les adresses soit instruit de votre envoi.” 

c. Fonds fr. 22871, fol. 156. “ Relevé des Notes” written apparently some years after the event, 
as the handwriting is that of Fauvel’s later years. 

“Le 5 prairial an onze j’avais embarqué sur la corvette l’Arabe commandée par Mr’ Bertelin 
heutenant de vaisseau vingt quatre ® caisses marquées C G et numerotées contenant des platres et 
quelques marbres que j’avais séquestrés 4 Athénes n’ayant point été payé de ce que me devait M* 


1 This seems to be an inscription taken from the Erechtheum in December, 1788. See App. B, VI, p. 610, 
note 7. 

® The objects noted here are those already recorded in the memorandum from which the preceding extract, No. 8, is 
taken. The large relief is there said to have been found in excavating some tombs near Calirrhoe. It took two days 
to transport it to the coast. The metope of the Parthenon is in the British Museum. 

* The name of the commander was De Terrasse: cf. Fonds fr. 22873, fols. 172, 177; Now. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 24. 

* The memoranda are in Fonds fr. 22870, fol. 84, and 22871, fol. 156. Both refer to the loss of ’Arabe in 1803, 
and cannot, therefore, be earlier. The second is a free copy of the first, and, judging from the handwriting, was made 
considerably later than 1803. The correct year is certainly 1791, for in a letter to Choiseul Fauvel mentions that he 
left Athens on La Brune on August 9, 1791 (Now. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 26). 

® In an earlier set of notes (ibid. 22870, fol. 84) of which this “relevé” is a revised copy, Fauvel says eight boxes. 
Berthelin’s receipt (11, 6) proves that there were at least twenty-six. 


APPENDIX A 595 


de Choiseul, 4 qui je les envoyai alors, par ordre de Mr de tallerand [sic] ministre des affaires étran- 
géres. . . . La caisse No. 1 a 6 pieds de long et 4 pieds de large. Elle renferme une des caryatides en 
platre du temple de Pandrose & Athénes.”’ 

d. Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 187. Choiseul to Fauvel, Paris, January 8, 1804; received May 30, 1804. 

“Vous aurez su, mon cher Fauvel, le malheur que nous avons éprouvé. Je vous ai donné déja ce 
traite noir dans ma derniére lettre,! mais leur marche est si incertain que peut-étre ne vous sera-t-elle 
pas parvenue. La Corvette sur laquelle vous aviez chargé mes richesses a été la seule prise par les 
Anglais, et toutes nos caisses sont 4 Malte. J’ai fait des démarches multipliés pour étre admis A les 
racheter, mais les Communications sont si difficiles en saison de la guerre, que je ne sais encore rien 
de certain sur mon sort.” 

e. Now. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 35. Fauvel to Choiseul, Athens, 18 Nivése, An XII (January 9, 1804). 

“Je ne regu que le 7 nivose [December 29, 1803] la lettre que vous m’aves fait l’honneur de 
m’écrire le 14 Juin en réponse 4 celle que j’ai eu l’honneur de vous écrire des Dardanelles; je vois 
avec peine que vous n’avies point encore recu A cette epoque ma lettre de 7 prairial, par la quelle je 
vous annon¢ois l’embarquement sur la corvette l’Arabe, de tous les objets d’art et d’antiquités qui 
vous étoient restés ici et de quelqu’ autres que j’y avois ajoutés; pris malheureusement par les 
Anglais, perte 4 la quelle je suis aussi sensible que vous méme.”’ 

12. Fauvel’s references to Lord Elgin’s work on the Erechtheum. 

a. Nouv. acq. fr. 7558, fol. 32 (Omont, l.c., p. 245, in part). Fauvel to Choiseul, 30 Floréal, XI 
(May 20, 1803), after speaking of the doings of Lord Elgin’s agents, he continues: 

“Tls ont en partie détruit le temple d’Erectée. Non seulement ils ont emporté des ornemens de 
la frise mais encore une colonne de l’angle, des 6 du cété du levant. . . . J’ai écrit & ce sujet au général 
Brun,” mais les dégdts continuent et bientét on ne sera plus 4 tems de les empécher 4 moins qu’ils 
ne se disposent 4 enlever le temple méme. Ils ont eu une Caryatide, aujourd’hui ils ont jetté bas un 
des poutres et l’angle N O de la cella.’ ? 

b. In his letter of January 9, 1804 (11, e, above) Fauvel writes: 

“J’arrétois certainement les dégats des Anglais 4 Athénes si la réponse du Général Brun n’étoit 
restée 5 mois 4 Salonique. Je lui envoy le procés-verbal dont il me dit avoir besoin, mais c’est trop 
tard. Il ne reste plus qu’une partie de la frise de la facade du temple de Minerve. J’aurrois sauvé 
toute cette frise, les métopes, une Cariatide, et une portion du temple d’Erectée. C’est ny ma faute 
ny celle du Général Brun, j’ai fait mon devoir, mais le défaut d’occasion & Salonique et la negligence 
d’expédier des duplicata.”’ 4 

c. Fonds fr. 22877, part 1, fol. 82. In a list of “Objets enlevés par Elgin 4 Athénes,” perhaps a 
draft of the ‘procés-verbal”’ sent to General Brune, are these items: 

‘“‘1 colonne de l’angle N E du temple d’Erectée.”’ 

“Une Cariatide du temple de Pandrose. Des architraves et plus de quarante pierres du corps 
du temple pour le marbre seulement.”’ > 

At the end of the list is added: 

‘Sans un office présenté A la Porte par le général Brune il ne serait rien resté 4 Athénes de sculp- 
ture. Cet office qui conserva ce qui reste aujourd’hui arréta la main des gens d’Elgin. Les frontons 


1 This earlier letter is not among Fauvel’s papers. 

2 General Brune was the French Ambassador at Constantinople. Fauvel generally spells the name, Brun. 

3 The O is faint in Fauvel’s manuscript, but perfectly distinct. It is clearly a slip of the pen for E, since the 
reference must be to the destruction of the northeast anta. 

4 In a letter (ibid., fol. 38) of 24 Pluvidse, An XII (February 14, 1804), which is in substance a duplicate of the 
letter of January 9, Fauvel repeats his belief that he could have stopped “les dévastations des Anglais” but for the 
delay in receiving Brune’s letters. 

5 This last statement seems wholly unfounded. No plain marble blocks are known to have been taken by 


Elgin. 


596 THE ERECHTHEUM 


avaient été dépouillés avant mon arrivée et sans la négligence du consul de France a Salonique, 
Magalori, exceptés les frontons tout le reste était conservé.” * 

13. Observations of Fauvel on the Erechtheum in Jacques-Guillaume Legrand, Monwmens de la 
Gréce, ou Collection des chefs-d’oewvre d’architecture, de sculpture, et de peinture antiques [Galerie 
antique, I]. P. 76. 

‘“‘M. Fauvel a observé une petite porte antique pratiquée dans le soubassement de ces figures 
lie., les Caryatides], et placée au-dessous de la corniche du piédestal dans langle de la fagade orien- 
tale. Cette porte coupe les moulures de la base, et descend jusque sur le premier gradin. II y avoit 
intérieurement des marches qui montoient au temple de Pandrose. Il a fait de vaines recherches 
pour trouver le puits d’eau salée, et n’a pu y parvenir. 

“Voici encore quelques-unes des observations que je dois 4 son obligeance: 

“On a pratiqué une porte au milieu du soubassement de |’élévation occidentale, au dessous de la 
croisée; mais cette porte est moderne. Les croisées, leurs chambranles et leurs appuis sont bien 
antiques, et non modernes, comme on pourroit le soupgonner d’aprés leur forme. La frise de l’entab- 
lement est d’un marbre bleudtre. Dans |’élévation orientale, elle est rustiquée et percée de trous de 
crampons qui annoncent qu’elle a été revétue de bronzes. Le reste de l’entablement est de marbre 
blanc. Il y a dans les cannelures, des coussinets, des volutes, des clous de bronze qui servoient pro- 
bablement pour attacher des guirlandes aux jours de fétes. Il y avoit aux portes extérieures des 
temples, sous les peristyles, des chambranles de marbre appliqués aprés coup, comme on applique 
aujourd’hui des chambranles de bois dans nos appartemens. On en voit encore la trace sur les 
murs et l’on en a trouvé des fragmens. Certains ornemens qu’il eit été trop difficile de sculpter dans 
les caissons renfoncés du plafond, y étoient peints.” 


XV. Epwarp Dantet CLARKE, 1801. Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asta, and Africa. 
Part the Second — Greece, Egypt, and the Holy Land; Section the second. London, 1814. Pp. 498-502. 
The quotations are from Volume III of the first edition in quarto.? 

P. 499. —“‘ The whole structure was called Hrecthéum, consisting only of two contiguous temples; 
that of Minerva Polias, with its portico towards the east; and that of Pandrosus towards the west, 
with its two porticoes standing by the north and south angles, the entrance to the Pandroseum being 
on the northern side.” 

P. 496. — ‘Among the ruins of this [i.e., the Parthenon] and of other buildings in the Acropolis, 
we noticed the fragments of almost every kind of marble... but particularly of the verd-antique, 
entire columns of which had once adorned the Erecthéwm: under a heap of loose stones and rubbish 
in the centre of it, we discovered the broken shaft of a verd-antique pillar of uncommon beauty: this 
we purchased of the Disdar; and having with great difficulty removed it from the Acropolis, we sent 
it to England.* A bluish-gray limestone was also used in some of the works; particularly in the 
exquisite ornaments of the Hrecthéum, where the frieze of the temple and of its porticoes are not 
of marble, like the rest of the building, but of this sort of slate-like limestone: the tympanum of 


1 Fauvel repeats this tribute to General Brune in another note in his later handwriting (ibid., fol. 49): ‘Ce qui se 
voit encore de sculpture est di & cet ambassadeur.” On Fauvel’s hostile activity at this time, see Lusieri’s letter to 
Elgin, February 6, 1804 (Smith, J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, p. 257). It is at least doubtful whether Fauvel’s interven- 
tion was as efficacious as he declared. Lusieri apparently secured everything he thought it worth while to take. 

? Clarke says little about the actual appearance of the building, and adds nothing of importance on this point. 

’ This seems the earliest statement of a theory, later elaborated by Wilkins in Atheniensia and perhaps suggested 
to Clarke by him, which in the early nineteenth century generally superseded the identification of the parts of the 
building proposed by Chandler (XIII, above), see Ch. V, p. 543, note 5. 

4 See Greek Marbles, p. 39, No. XVII, Cambridge, 1809. In this catalogue of the antiquities presented by 
Clarke to Cambridge University it is thus described: “Part of a Column of that rare antient Breccia called by the 


Italians Verde Antico. It was taken from the Temple of Hrectheus in the Acropolis of Athens.’’ See also Ch. V, p. 502, 
note 4. 


APPENDIX A 597 


the pediment is likewise of the same stone; a singular circumstance truly, and requiring some 
explanation.” 1 

P. 797.— “Mr. Cripps has preserved, in his MS. Journal, a note, dictated by Lusieri, relative 
to a very curious discovery made by that artist with regard to the sculptured ornaments of the 
Lrecthéum. ‘The author also well remembers its being pointed out to him by the same person upon 
the spot. Lusieri found among the most delicate intertexture of the wreaths and foliage, small brass 
nails, and bits of antique glass, which had been fastened on to heighten the general delicacy and 
exquisite finishing of the work. This circumstance has been noticed by no other traveller.” 


XVI. Passages relating to the Erechtheum in the papers of Lord Elgin, as published by Arthur 
Hamilton Smith, Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXXVI, 1916, pp. 163-3722 

P. 196.— Hunt to Elgin, Athens, July 31, 1801. A block of the Erechtheum cornice had been 
taken down and the Caryatid porch cleared of disfiguring accretions. “The Cariatids that support 
it, and the rich ornaments of its cornice and ceiling, are now open to the day.” “If your Lordship 
would come here in a large Man of War that beautiful little model of ancient art might be trans- 
ported wholly to England. Nothing can exceed the exquisite beauty and delicacy of all its details.” 

P, 198.— August 6, 1801, Lusieri hopes to secure a considerable piece of the cornice of the 
Erechtheum. 

P. 202. — Lusieri to Elgin, Athens, October 26, 1801. “With a single saw that I have got from 
the convent, they have sawn a precious fragment of the cornice of the Temple of Neptune 
Erechtheus.” 

P. 203.— Captain Lacy of the Engineers, then Elgin’s agent at Athens, in a letter of December 
8, 1801, is eager that the Porch of the Maidens should be secured entire for the collection. 

P. 204. — Lusieri, writing on December 7, 1801, is not so enthusiastic about the ‘‘Pandroseum.” 
The five Caryatids are very like each other, and not of such fine sculpture as the metopes and reliefs 
li.e., of the Parthenon]. 

P. 207. — Elgin to Lusieri, Constantinople, December 26, 1801. After urging the continuance 
of excavation, he writes: ‘I name very especially the temple of Pandrosos. I flatter myself that 
you have already thought of ways of transporting it. If Captain Lacy is with you, with the means 
that Mr. Hamilton will have supplied, such as levers and so forth, perhaps you could get down the 
statues one after another, and put them on my brig, and by degrees transport the whole to Zea. 
... I should wish to have, of the Acropolis, examples in the actual object, of each thing, and archi- 
tectural ornament — of each cornice, each frieze, each capital — of the decorated ceilings, of the 
fluted columns — specimens of the different architectural orders, and of the variant forms of the 
orders — of metopes and the like, as much as possible.” 

P. 208. — Lusieri to Elgin, Athens, January 5, 1802. “If I cannot get the Pandroseum entire, 
I do not despair of one of the Caryatids.” 

P. 209.— Lusieri to Elgin, Athens, January 11, 1802. ‘‘The formatori are engaged on the temple 
of Neptune Erechtheus, of Minerva Polias, and the Pandroseum. The details of these various little 
monuments are masterpieces. Without a special firman it is impossible to take away the last. The 
Turks and the Greeks are extremely attached to it, and there were murmurs when Mr. Hunt asked 
for it.2 Also I do not think it would be worth while, on account of its bad condition. The five 


1 “For this fact the author is indebted to Mr. Wilkins, author of the Antiquities of Magna Grecia, ete.” For 
this curious error of Wilkins and some of his contemporaries see above, Chap. I, p. 93, note 3. 

2 The quotation marks enclose the passages quoted by Mr. Smith from the letters; the other statements are based 
on his summaries of the letters without quotation. It is to be noted that the correspondence between Elgin and Lusieri 
is only published in translation. 

3 Cf. Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin’s Collection of Sculptured Mar- 
bles, etc., pp. 145,146. Hunt had testified that he sailed from Athens with the ambassador on his return to England. 
“Was one of the Caryatides removed at that time? I think it was. Do you know whether the removal of that piece 


598 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Caryatids are exactly similar, and the base, the cornice, and the upper part are in a pitiful state. 
It will not be difficult, by means with which I am acquainted, to get the best of these Caryatids, 
to have it restored at Rome, and afterwards to have it moulded. In this way your Excellency might 
have this little monument quite complete. In pursuance of this idea I am having moulded the few 
details that remain.” 

P. 218.— Lady Elgin to Lord Elgin, Athens, May 25, 1802.1 “As for getting the other things you 
wished for down from the Acropolis it is quite impossible before you return. Lusieri says Capt. Lacy 
was upon his first coming here against the things being taken down, but at last he was keener than 
anybody and absolutely wished you to have the whole Temple of the Cari— something, where the 
Statues of the Women are.” 

P. 234.— Elgin to Lusieri, Constantinople, October 8, 1802. ‘The least little things from Athens 
are invaluable. . . . The first on the list are the metopes, the bas-reliefs, and the remains of the statues 
that can still be found. . . . Would it be permissible to speak of a Caryatid? I leave the decision to 
you, if you have the possibility. Do not forget some capitals on the Acropolis. . .. To sum up, the 
slightest object from the Acropolis is a jewel — all the details of the different orders of Architecture. 
Further, some fragments of Minerva Polias — a capital from these if possible.” 

P. 236. — Lusieri to Elgin, Athens, October 28, 1802. In a list of objects which had already been 
moulded are “the bust of a Caryatid,’’ and ‘‘all the different ornaments of the portico and of the 
temple of Erechtheus and of the Pandroseum.”’ All these casts from the Erechtheum were lost. 

P. 256. — Lusieri to Elgin, Athens, April 27, 1803.2, In a report upon new acquisitions he in- 
cludes the Caryatid and the column from the East Portico. Captain Gore of the Medusa had 
already taken away the Caryatid and some other marbles. 


XVII. Joun Lewis Wo.re, 1820. Sketch-books and Diaries, in the Library of the Royal Institute 
of British Architects.* 

The material relating to the Erechtheum is contained in a large folio volume of Drawings, with 
many marginal notes, and in a small Note-book. There are twenty-seven drawings of architectural 
details (pp. 99-120), almost wholly taken from the North Portico. It would seem that Wolfe studied 
and drew in the garret over the powder magazine (Fig. 223), where all the interior decoration could be 
examined at close range. A striking feature of Wolfe’s notes is his free criticism of details that did 
not please him. His remarks do not contain much new information, but their critical character, at 
a time of generally uncritical eulogy of everything Athenian, gives them a special interest quite apart 
from their descriptive value, and for that reason they are here printed, by kind permission of the 
Council of the Institute, although their date is later than the limit assigned to this section. The 
following extracts show Wolfe’s close observation and independence of judgment. 


of sculpture created any discontent or sensation among the people of Athens? I had no personal knowledge that it 
did; no such discontent was ever expressed to me.” Hunt’s memory was at fault also in the matter of dates, for 
Lord Elgin sailed from Athens for Malta on February 3, 1803 (Smith, l.c., p. 253), while the acquisition of the Carya- 
tid was not reported by Lusieri until April 27 (<bid., p. 256). On the local belief that the statues of the Maidens were 
real beings, petrified by enchantment, see, for example, T. 8. Hughes, Travels in Sicily, Greece, and Albania, p. 261, 
and John Bramsen, Travels in Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, the Morea, Greece, Italy, etc., II, p. 83; “Signor Lusieri informed 
us that the superstitious Athenians not a little regretted the loss of these statues, and were heard very gravely to 
assert, that the other four sisters used frequently, during the silence of night, to utter plaintive laments for the loss 
of their companions.” Hobhouse, A Journey through Albania and other Provinces of Turkey, p. 345, note, refers to 
a general belief that all the statues were held in stone by enchantment, which would have power so long as the Turks 
were masters of Greece. 

1 Lord Elgin had left Athens to visit other parts of Greece. 

? Lord Elgin was at this time on his way back to England by way of Italy and France. 

’ These books were presented to the Institute by Mr. Wolfe Barry, son of Sir Charles Barry; Transactions 
k. I. B. A., 1895, pp. 73 ff. 


APPENDIX A 599 


Drawines (p. 119). A drawing of the exterior mouldings of the architrave and cornice. ‘‘ Upper 
eggs very wide apart and poor. Ornament of bed mould very bold — broad and well-relieved — dif- 
fers from others in the great projection of dart beyond fillet. Ornament finishing bed moulding is 
very pretty. Frieze of bluish gray stone covered with cement laid on in two coats — outer one 
beautifully polished and the colour of the marble.!_ Iron cramps seen in it on flanks and front.” ‘The 
mouldings of architrave are very delicate but the ornament they contain is rather too much squeezed 
together. Eggs in abacus excellent shape. Those below plat-band excellent but want some relief 
below. Bronze nails seen in the whole circuit of channel between volutes as well as in eye and deep 
sunk angle. No glass eyes remaining in ‘plat-band.”? “Footing for raking cornice got out of same 
block as horizontal one.” ‘The top of cornice rakes sensibly.” 

NorTE-BOOK (p. 39). Interior of North Portico. “Mouldings of pannels unwrought. I could dis- 
cover no remains of painting in them, which some have. In the center of each is a hole for affixing 
rosettes — face left rough — Greek border painted on margin. ... Cap of column. In the eyes of 
plat-band glass eyes remain composed of opaque vitreous substance — of bright colours — yellow, 
blue and purple. In one instance two of these eyes in angle. Bent nails on top of plat-band and in 
every other channel on the baluster side of Cap!... Door. I cannot judge of the effect of the pro- 
portion the lower part being walled up. The great cymatium enriched with an ornament most vilely 
executed and as vilely designed. It would disgrace the middle ages. The consoles are pretty for 
interior decoration. No broad light sufficient for external work. The face is very graceful. But the 
volutes might be improved in profile especially the lower one which is clumsy. The cavetto and eggs 
are remarkably bold, more so than any Greek I have seen while the cymatium is peculiarly flat. 
The patera [sic] are stiff and formal — those at Bari much better. The architrave * mouldings are 
very much confused and betray a poverty of invention in the triple repetition of the mould®.”’ 

P. 40. — “Exterior. The entablature unrivalled. Beautiful in the highest degree. Ornament 
judiciously introduced producing richness without confusion. Proportions of entablature excellent — 
both generally and particularly. The great cutting up of the larmier produces rather a tin-like ap- 
pearance about the fascia in corona. The Capitals are entitled to the same undivided praise at least 
in their present state for when the temple was perfect the glass and gilt ornaments about it must have 
been very injurious to the effect — filling up the channels between the volutes, which now give distinct- 
ness tothem. The deep sinking in the angle is very effective and certainly to be adopted in like cases. 
The hem might perhaps with advantage have been sunk deeper as the northern aspect of the temple 
scarcely allows light enough to prevent confusion in the volutes. The platted band is very pretty: 
how much preferable to the.unwieldy ovolo in the same situation in Roman caps. The ornamented 
necking is well introduced in a cap of the proportion of these, which requires height to bear it out. 
The abacus is not square being wider in front than in flank — giving greater projection to the volutes. 
The latter are admirably proportioned to the Cap of the Column. The angle volutes have a very 
good effect. I should have no hesitation in introducing them in like circumstances. The proportions 
of the columns cannot be judged of being walled up and partly buried.” 

P. 41. —“‘Hexastyle Portico. The columns are very candle-like. No visible diminution — very 
lofty. Caps wretchedly executed — ornaments in neck grapy... .” 

“Front with engaged columns. Caps also very badly done. But that of pilaster done as well as 


1 It is hard to explain this statement of Wolfe’s. There is no trace of any such coating on the frieze; see Chap. II, 
p. 181, note 4. 

2 This seems to apply only to the exterior of the column, for in his note-book Wolfe records the presence of beads 
in the interior guilloche. 

3 Wolfe designates by ‘“architrave” the portion of the lintel below the rosettes; the part above he calls “cornice”’; 
see Drawings, p. 109, where he notes at the bottom of a drawing of the ‘‘architrave” of the door; ‘Width of the lower 
fascia not determined — being buried in the rubblework of vault.”” This “lower fascia”’ apparently included the later 
lining of the door. 


6c 


600 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Tetrastyle Portico. Caps have been raised by the addition of a piece in neck. Windows are very 
much crowded in between 14 columns. Best effect of 144 columns I have ever seen.”’ 

“Stylagalmatic Portico.! — Roof in 4 blocks sloped a little from center to flank. No contrivance 
for covering joints visible. Blocks or oreilles at angles — and on each side indications of holes for 
discharging water which must have been cut through echinus.”’ 

P. 42.— “‘ Portico with Caryatides. There can be no doubt the introduction of these figures in this 
Portico was suggested by the nature of the ground which obliged the architect to employ a high 
Podium thereby diminishing the height of his order so much that columns would have been insignifi- 
cant. The two figures on the left of the Portico have the right leg advanced and those on the right the 
left one. I should have liked them better had the leg been less brought forward as it gives them the 
appearance of having but one. Nothing can be more beautiful than the whole of the drapery on the 
front of the figures but the back is too flat: no care seems to have been bestowed on [it] although it is 
seen from many points of view. .. . In one point of view all the upper part appears much too large 
for the legs and has a most disagreeable effect. The hair on the back is most frightfully arranged. . . . 
The entablature I think in itself not amiss except that the dentils are too large. When the echinus 
remained the whole must have been too heavy for the figures. The double row of eggs in the pilaster 
cap I object too [szc]. The whole of that part is too much cut up by ornament — the interposition 
of some plain surface would be an improvement. The eggs in the Podium are the best I have ever 
seen for effect at some distance from the eye: too bold perhaps in their actual situation.” 


1 The name given by Wilkins to the Porch of the Maidens, because the columns (o7’Ao1) were statues 
(ayadpaTa). 


APPENDIX B 


NOTES ON THE SOURCES FOR THE LATER HISTORY OF THE 
BHRECHTHEUM ! 


I. THe VENETIAN SouRcEs 


THE examination of the sources for the later history of the Erechtheum may properly commence 
with the occupation of Athens by the Venetians in 1687. The scanty references from earlier years 
are collected in Appendix A, and discussed in the chapter devoted to the history of the building. 
None of them presents a definite picture. Magni and Vernon do not go beyond a brief mention, and 
even the longer narratives of Spon and Wheler contain little more than the reasons for identifying 
the temple north of the Parthenon with the Erechtheum described by Pausanias. It isin the Venetian 
records that we first find material, however inadequate, for an approximate reconstruction of con- 
ditions at this time. The available sources are threefold: drawings, plans, and descriptions of the 
antiquities. 

Three drawings show the Acropolis from the north, from which side alone the Erechtheum was 
at that time visible,” — the original drawings of the engineers Miller and Verneda, and the rude cut 
of the destruction of the Parthenon in Fanelli, Atene Attica, p. 308.3 The two engineers fill the space 
north of the Parthenon with a series of small gable roofs, none of which can be fairly identified with 
the Erechtheum. Fanelli’s engraver has inserted near the site of the temple a house with a gable 
roof and chimney at its east end, and in place of the North Portico a projecting wing with a sloping 
roof, the whole irresistibly suggesting an old-fashioned New England farmhouse with a “lean-to.”’ 
We may fairly believe that the source of this engraving represented the Erechtheum, but the copyist 
has so transformed the original as to deprive his version of any value. 

The case is a little better when we turn to the Venetian plans and descriptions of the Acropolis, 
for in spite of obvious defects they throw some light on the appearance of the building. The plans 
are four in number: 

1. The plan of the city of Athens‘ prepared by the engineer Giacomo Milhau Verneda and 


1 This account of the chief sources for the history of the Erechtheum in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
is not intended to be complete in itself, but merely to supplement the History (Chapter V), by giving fuller information 
as to some of the authorities there mentioned and the nature and value of their work than could well be presented 
in footnotes to the text. It is further supplemented by the Chronological Bibliography given in Appendix C, 

2 The views from the south —e.g., Omont, Athénes, pls. XXIX-XXXI, XXXVI, XX XVII — show that the 
Erechtheum was hidden by the numerous houses between the Propylaea and the Parthenon. The two small engray- 
ings at Athens and Marburg (ibid., pl. XXXII) are taken from the north, but are on too small a scale to show any 
details. 

3 The original drawings are reproduced by Omont, op. cit., pls. XX XIII, XXXIV, and Verneda’s drawing also 
by Laborde, Athénes, II, p. 172. Fanelli, p. 113, gives a view of Athens copied somewhat carelessly from this draw- 
ing. The view of the destruction of the Parthenon is reproduced by Laborde, II, p. 150, and Omont, pl. XXXVI. 

4 Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Codd. Ital. Classe VII, No. 94, fol. 115. The volume is a large folio, acquired in 
1772, containing 119 maps and plans, chiefly connected with the campaigns of Morosini in Greece. A colored title- 
page bears the inscription: Dominio /della Seren / Republica /di/ Venetia / Sopra il/ Mare. /Tomo /Secondo. (The 
first volume is a folio of the same character, but containing material relating to the Cretan war and earlier battles with 
the Turks.) Verneda’s plan is on a large double sheet, and measures on the inside line of the border 0.759 m. x 0.496 m. 
It bears the title “PIANTA DEL CASTELLO D’ACROPOLIS E CITTA D’ATHENE. Oue s’osseruono le Cose pit cospicue che conten- 
gono tanto antiche quanto moderne, fatta con Vaccuratezza maggiore d’all’ Ingt? Verneda dordine dell?’ Ecce Sig Francesco 
Moresini [sic] Kt Proctor Cap? Gral, dopo il glorioso acquisto che ne fece in otto giornt d’assedio li 28: 7°? 1687 s.n.” The 
Acropolis is apparently finished, but it is possible that more details were to be added in the lower town. The volume 


602 THE ERECHTHEUM 


forwarded to the Venetian Senate by Morosini on November 15, 16871 (the Acropolis alone, Fig. 216). 
The Acropolis from this plan was published by Fanelli, Atene Attica, opp. p. 308.2 The accompany- 
ing key is discussed below in connection with the Venetian descriptions, to which it may be assigned 
on account of its length. In spite of its mistakes this is by far the best of the Venetian plans. It 
vives the relative position of the Erechtheum with considerable accuracy, though it fails in rendering 
the proportions and disposition of the several parts. The main building is simply an open quadrangle 
with six detached columns at the eastern end,’ and no indication of the half-columns and windows 
at the west. The two porticoes are drawn in more detail, and it is significant that they alone are 
lettered. Both are apparently walled up,‘ and by a curious error only three columns and three 
Maidens are drawn on the long side of each portico, although the text implies correctly that there 
were four. In the North Portico a small rectangle (N) marks, according to the key, the chief powder 
magazine.» Fanelli’s engraver omitted the magazine and the letter from the plan, while retaining 
the letter in his key. He may also have intended to show four columns and four Maidens instead 
of Verneda’s three, but his execution is so careless that it is hard to be certain on this point. 

2. A plan of the whole city by the Conte di San Felice,*® published by Fanelli, Atene Attica, 
p. 318.7 The Erechtheum is grotesquely misrepresented. It is placed close to the Parthenon, the 
Porch of the Maidens is omitted, and the North Portico is separated from the main building, pro- 
vided with an apse, and outlined by dots as though an open colonnade. The apse may well have 
arisen from the remains of the house upon the north side. There are only four columns at the east 
end. As compensation for these errors the western inner wall is plainly drawn. The key interprets 
D (the main building) as ‘‘Tempio di Minerva Poliados” and E (the North Portico) as “Tempio 
di Nettuno.” 


was discovered by Bodo Ebhardt, who published this plan and also the plan of the Acropolis on folio 116 (No. 4, 
below) in Der Burgwart, XI, 1910, pp. 45-49, but without giving the number of the manuscript or the dimensions of 
the plans. The plans were further discussed in C. R. Acad. Insc., 1910, pp. 278-285, by the late Adolf Michaelis, who, 
however, had no further information as to the manuscript. In the summer of 1913 I examined the manuscript and 
through the courtesy of the authorities secured the photograph of the Acropolis reproduced in Figure 216. 

1 Verneda seems to have been a somewhat important officer in Morosini’s corps of engineers. According to his 
petition, forwarded to the Senate by Morosini with the plan, he had been ten years in the Venetian service and had 
taken part in all the sieges of Morosini’s successful campaign (Laborde, Athénes, II, p. 180, note, and compare the 
end of the report on Corinth). He is mentioned by Locatelli (I, pp. 129, 145, 147) as directing mining and trenching 
operations at Coron, where he was severely wounded. On March 18, 1688, he submitted to Morosini a long report 
on the best system of defences for Corinth and the Isthmus (The Jonian Anthology, 1834, No. 3, pp. 557-566, from 
the original manuscript owned by A. Mustoxidi; the plan which accompanied this report has not yet been identified). 
He was killed September 2, 1688, while directing operations against the fortress of Kara Baba on the mainland oppo- 
site Negroponte (Locatelli, II, p. 120). In the volume with the plan of Athens is a plan (fol. 107) by Verneda, or 
copied from him, of this fortress and of the system of trenches by which it was to be attacked. 

2 The plan of the Acropolis is reproduced from Fanelli by Laborde, Athénes, II, opp. p. 182, and Omont, Athénes, 
pl. XLV, 2. Fanelli’s version is by no means an accurate copy of Verneda’s drawing. 

3 Pencil marks on the drawing show that the continuation of the south wall to the corner column is due to a slip 
of the pen. 

* For the North Portico this is obvious, and it seems highly probable for the Porch of the Maidens, which is also 
outlined in solid red. Unless this porch was also filled or surrounded by walls, it is impossible to understand why only 
four Maidens are ever mentioned, although five were certainly in place. 

> The key to the plan says: “Il color di Cinaprio dinotta il Recinto di Muro tanto in Fortezza come in Citta. 
Il color di Carmin dinotta tutte le fabriche antiche lavorate di Marmo.’’ In accord with this statement the walls of 
the Erechtheum, including even the inner rectangle of the North Portico, are red. 'The columns are marked in gold 
ink. 

® Mutoni, Conte di San Felice, was in command of the mortar batteries in Kénigsmarck’s army (Locatelli, I, 
p. 211), and according to his fellow-officers exceedingly incompetent, since he regulated his fire so badly that his bombs 
did more damage to his own side than to the enemy; see the documents in Laborde, Athénes, II, pp. 141 f., note. 

7 Also in Laborde, Athénes, I, p. 180; Omont, Athénes, pl. XLV, 1, and p. 18, I. 


APPENDIX B 603 


3. A plan of the city of Athens, dedicated to Girolamo Duodo, published by Coronelli, Teatro 
delle Citta e Porti principali dell’ Europa, Vol. 1.1 In preparing this plan Coronelli certainly used 
Verneda, to whom he owes the indications of the position of the troops and many of his legends, 
but apparently also San Felice and a third lost source, for in many details he differs from both the 
engineers. The small scale of the Acropolis made it necessary to substitute letters for the inscrip- 
tions used in the lower town, and the Erechtheum as a whole is marked m, explained in the key 
as “Tempio di Ericteus.” The position of the building is rather better than on San Felice’s plan, 
but there are five columns at the east end and also on the front of the North Portico. The scale is 
too small to admit of details. 

4. An anonymous plan of the Acropolis in the same volume with Verneda’s plan of the city,” 
and reproduced by Coronelli in the Teatro. Here too the Erechtheum is somewhat misplaced and 
there are other errors, such as five columns on the front of the North Portico, and at the east end 
of the main building a wall and door with only five columns in front. The west inner wall, however, 
is indicated — here by four columns rather than by a wall and door — and the door into the Porch 
of the Maidens appears for the first time. The plan as a whole ranks but little below Verneda’s. Be- 
side the North Portico is written “Tempio di Nettuno”’ and beside the Porch of the Maidens is 
“Tempio di Minerva Poliados.”’ 

The Erechtheum also appears in four Venetian descriptions of the antiquities of the city: 

1. The detailed and carefully written key to Verneda’s plan (App. A, V), which is repeated with 
unimportant variations in a manuscript in Vienna,’ and, for the Acropolis, on Fanelli’s plate.‘ 

2. The description in the ‘“ Relatione” of the bombardier De la Rue® (App. A, VI), published 
from a manuscript in Florence by Von Duhn, Arch. Zig., XXXVI, 1878, pp. 59, 60. 

3. An account (App. A, VII, 4) published in 1691 in the posthumous work of A. Locatelli,® 
Racconto historico della Veneta guerra in Levante, Pt. II, p. 33, and republished (App. A, VII, B) in 
the Galleria di Minerva, I, 1696, p. 385, with numerous alterations and corrections of the very care- 
lessly printed original, but without any mention of its previous appearance. 

4. The description (App. A, VIII) inserted by Fanelli in his text (pp. 321, 322), which is quite 
independent of the key by Verneda, attached to the plan of the Acropolis also published by Fanelli. 

The evidential value of these descriptions is by no means equal. The first three are the work 
of men who had been in Athens, and, if we leave out the mythology, both Verneda and De la Rue 


1 This work (Venice, 1697) is a large folio containing many maps and plans, The plates are not numbered, but are 
arranged by countries, and those relating to the same place are grouped together. The work contains three plans of 
Athens, Coronelli’s version of Spon’s plan, the modification of Guillet’s plan dedicated to Martinelli (on these two plans 
see J. R. Wheeler, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., VII, 1896, pp. 177-189), and the plan cited in the text. The Acropolis from 
this plan is published by Omont, Athénes, pl. XLV, 3; see also p. 20, III. 

2 Venice, op. cit., fol. 116. Also reproduced by Ebhardt and Michaelis, see p. 601, note 4. The plan measures 
0.53 m. xX 0.285 m. Coronelli’s copy is reproduced by Omont, Athénes, pl. XLV, 4; see also p. 20, IV. Other plates 
in the Teatro are also the same as those in the manuscript. 

8 Vienna, Tabulae codd. mss. Bibl. Palat., IV, p. 203, No. 5827. The text, in parallel columns with that of Fanelli, 
is given by Omont, Athénes, pp. 19-20. 

4 The discovery of the original plan has shown that Laborde (Athénes, II, pp. 18 note, 182 note) and Von Duhn 
(Arch. Ztg., XXXVI, 1878, p. 60) were wrong in assuming that the key was the work of Fanelli and that Verneda was 
not responsible for the errors it contains. The most fateful blunder in its influence on later opinion was the identifi- 
cation of the north wing of the Propylaea with the temple of Athena Nike. 

5 Nothing seems to be known of Rinaldo de la Rue, except that he was severely wounded, September 15, 1688, 
during the siege of Negroponte (Locatelli, II, p. 128). For the full title of De la Rue’s manuscript see App. A, VI. 

6 Another edition of this work appeared in 1705 with the title ‘‘ Historia della guerra Veneta in Levante, opera 
postuma di Alessandro Locatelli.” Locatelli was one of Morosini’s secretaries and accompanied him during the greater 
part of his campaigns. The first edition appeared “a spese di Girolamo Albrizzi,”’ who was also the publisher of the 
Galleria di Minerva, a fact which may account for the republication of Locatelli’s text without acknowledgment. The 
description is there attributed to “Signor N. N.” 


604 THE ERECHTHEUM 


vive clear and reasonably accurate, though incomplete, accounts of the building as they saw it. 
Locatelli’s confused statement has obviously little intrinsic worth, although the eye-witness appears 
in the mention of the colored glass in the capitals of the North Portico. The ten columns given to 
his ‘Tempio di Nettuno” might in a more careful writer suggest the inclusion of the west front of 
the main building, but in him are much more likely to be a mere blunder. Fanelli’s description rests 
on a wholly different basis. He had never been in Athens, and published his book in 1707, twenty 
years after the capture of the city by the Venetians. His account of the “Tempio di Eretteo,” by 
which he means only the North Portico, is obviously in great part a mere paraphrase of Wheler, to 
whom he is indebted for the lengthy discussion of the salt spring, the dimensions of the temple, and 
especially the unique error — conclusive evidence that Wheler and not Spon is his source — about 
the Doric element in the Ionic capitals. Yet he had other information at his disposal: the salt spring 
is now inaccessible because of the powder magazine, not the harem; the great door is described, and 
now leads not into Wheler’s “bigger temple’’ but into a “salone spacioso”’ with six monolithic (!) 
columns at one end and two windows with marble ‘‘gelosie’”’ at the other. Such statements could 
well come from men who had shared in Morosini’s campaign, and are evidently to be treated on the 
same basis as those of Verneda and his companions. For the Porch of the Maidens these informants 
seem to have failed (unless, indeed, the wall with niches containing statues of the three Graces is 
derived from such a source rather than constructed from Wheler), and Fanelli therefore took refuge 
in a mythological disquisition based on Natalis Comes. It is illuminating for Fanelli’s methods of 
composition that, although he published a plate containing Verneda’s plan of the Acropolis with 
its key, he paid no heed to either in his text. 


II. Fourmont 


There is no need to devote much space to the stay of Michel Fourmont in Athens, since the story 
has been told and all the significant documents published in M. Henri Omont’s Missions archéologiques 
francaises en Orient, I, pp. 537 ff.; II, pp. 1086-1088, 1129-1134. It will suffice here to call attention 
to those points which throw light on his curious error in drawing the Erechtheum. During his stay 
in Athens the letters of Michel Fourmont '! are strangely silent about the monuments, and, although 
he certainly visited the Acropolis, it is equally certain that he can have spent but little time there. 
Yet the ancient remains were not wholly neglected, for we hear of a very detailed plan of Athens 
and of drawings of all the ancient buildings prepared by the younger Fourmont, who was the 
draughtsman of the party. The plan has disappeared, and there is little from Athens among the 
maps and sketches in the Bibliothéque Nationale. Nor is the loss a serious one, for what has sur- 
vived gives but an indifferent impression of the artist’s skill or accuracy, though there is probably 
nothing so completely unsuccessful as the drawing of the Erechtheum. This has survived in two 


1 The Fourmont papers are for the most part in the Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris. The letters from Athens 
are chiefly in Supplément grec, 295, 930 (copies by Villoison); the inscriptions, ibid., 569-571, 854; the drawings, ibid., 
853, 856. See also Nouv. acg. fr. 5384, 8985, and Omont, op. cit. Omont has published practically all the documents 
relating to Athens; the little left unpublished contains nothing significant. The manuscript Nowy. acq. fr. 1892 con- 
tains an account of the tour in Greece by the younger Fourmont, with numerous small and rude drawings, almost 
wholly copied from the larger ones; cf. Omont, op. cit., I, p. 661, note 1. 

* Fourmont’s accounts show that he made a present of coffee and pepper to the Disdar (commandant of the 
Acropolis), and paid fees to the captain of the guard (Omont, II, p. 1130). He also mentions the Disdar among the 
Turkish officials who aided him in his search for inscriptions (ibid., p. 1086). Yet only three inscriptions (Sup- 
plément grec, 569, fols. 249, 251; 571, fol. 218 = 7. G., III, 1602, 1547, 632) are noted as copied on the Acropolis, 
although it is clear that even a brief search must have yielded a much greater harvest. The inevitable conclusion, 
that the Fourmonts spent little time on the Acropolis, is confirmed when we find in the narrative of C.-L. Fourmont 
brief notices of the monuments in the lower town, but nothing about those on the Acropolis, though four blank pages 
(Now. acq. fr. 1892, fols. 142, 143) have evidently been reserved for them. 


APPENDIX B 605 


versions, one of which (Fig. 217) is a copy of the other. The original is a carefully executed but very 
badly damaged drawing in ink, now divided between Supplément grec, 853, fol. 11, and 856, fol. 17. 
The former fragment contains only the lower right portion, including rather more than half the 
length and less than a third of the height; the upper margin is very irregular and very badly defaced. 
The other fragment has preserved all the left side as far as the second engaged column in the facade, 
the upper margin for the full length, and about half the right margin, including the head of the 
maiden at the right corner of the portico. The preserved margins show that the drawing originally 
measured 0.492 m. X 0.315 m. Much of the right centre of the drawing has disappeared, but what 
remains is sufficient to show that the copy (0.218 m. x 0.156 m.) in the younger Fourmont’s manu- 
script (Nowv. acq. fr. 1892, fol. 86), though far inferior in delicacy of line, has faithfully reproduced 
the errors of the original. Nor are these errors a mere accident of draughtsmanship; they represent 
apparently a deliberate opinion, formed doubtless from a study of rough notes after Fourmont’s 
return to France. 

In a list of drawings and maps prepared by Fourmont (Supplément grec, 856, fol. 3) there ap- 
pears as No. 2 “ Facade du temple d’Erecthée. Ce temple est de la derniére élégance. Le pronaon [sic] 
est soutenu par cinq figures qui sont de la derniére beauté. II est situé dans la forteresse d’Athénes.”’ 
A rough plan in pencil in the same volume (fol. 10) shows at the left a foundation with six columns 
in line, then the projecting Porch of the Maidens, and then a wall of equal length to that on the left, 
though no columns are indicated. The positions of the five Maidens are marked by the letter F in 
a square; that of the missing figure by FM. The whole resembles the plan of the west facade of the 
Library of Hadrian.' Another sheet (fol. 15) contains rough pencil-sketches of four Maidens, including 
the one in the return, and above to the left three Ionic columns on a podium, the upper part of three 
more, and an outline of the return and engaged column at the left.2, The podium and columns are 
higher than the Maidens and not directly connected with them. On other sheets (fols. 18, 88) are 
sketches for a perspective reconstruction of the Maidens and the columns, grouped as in the finished 
drawing. It is not at all improbable that these sketches on a single sheet were made from different 
points and later combined in forgetfulness of their correct orientation. Since the Fourmonts were 
certainly very seldom on the Acropolis, perhaps only once, such a lapse of memory is not very sur- 
prising, especially when their methods of work are examined. It was their custom to make on the 
spot in pencil hasty, or at any rate rough, sketches, copies of inscriptions, and brief notes, which were 
later (apparently after their return to France) elaborated into finished drawings and neat copies, 
not without alterations in detail. For the inscriptions carefully drawn bases, columns, and stelae 
were prepared in advance, and one volume (Supplément grec, 571D) contains merely these outlines 
into which the inscriptions have never been inserted. It is possible in another volume (zbid., 571B) 
to compare the original sketches with the finished drawings of a number of reliefs, and thus to see 
how the copyist was compelled to define the vague indications of the original. There are few, if any, 
’ such glaring lapses as occur in the drawing of the Erechtheum, but less conspicuous errors can be 
found in almost every map or drawing, and were indeed unavoidable under the circumstances.’ 


III. Sanpwicu, Pocockr, PERRY 


Nine years after Fourmont’s visit, in 1738, John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, and a party of 
friends came to Athens in the course of their tour of the Mediterranean. They had brought with them 
the artist J.-E. Liotard, who was “to draw the dresses of every country they should go into; to take 


1 Cf., for example, Stuart and Revett, I, Chap. V, pl. I; or Gardner, Ancient Athens, plan opposite p. 498. 

2 This sheet has also similar hasty sketches of some of the sculptures of the Parthenon. 

3 On these double versions of the drawings and inscriptions of Fourmont, see Conze, Arch. Anz., XI, 1896, p. 39, 
and Wilhelm, Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Classe, XX XVIII, 1901, 
p. 1389. 


606 THE ERECHTHEUM 


prospects of all the remarkable places which had made a figure in history; and to preserve in their 
memories, by the help of painting, those noble remains of antiquity which they went in quest of;” ? 
but if he made any drawings in Athens, they have disappeared. At the time, this tour attracted little 
attention, but in 1799, seven years after Sandwich’s death, there appeared a large quarto, A Voyage 
around the Mediterranean in 1738 and 1739, which purported to contain his journal on the cruise. 
It is probable that the narrative owed a good deal to the aid of his lordship’s tutor,’ but however 
that may be, it is certain that, although Sandwich was a member of the Society of Dilettanti, his 
description of the antiquities of Athens bears no trace of revision in the light of the works of Le Roy, 
Stuart, or Chandler, and may very well have been written at the time of the visit. His account of 
the Erechtheum (App. A, IX) is, for the time when it was written, intelligent and rather surprisingly 
accurate, the only glaring error being the ascription of ten columns to the North Portico. The 
absence of any wall at the east end and the difference of level probably account for the belief that 
the west end was the principal front of the main building. It is curious to find one of the alternatives 
in De la Rue reappearing after fifty years in the identification of the main building with the temple 
of the Polias, and of the North Portico with that of Pandrosus, while the Porch of the Maidens — 
nameless to the Venetian — becomes, in default of a better explanation, the dwelling of the Arre- 
phori. 

After a prolonged tour in Asia Minor and the nearer East, Richard Pococke arrived in Athens in 
the autumn of 1740, and on October 11 and 12 (N.S.) visited the Acropolis.? A man far better 
versed in classical and oriental learning than his predecessors, he was much less dependent on local 
guides and traditions, and his theories, even when erroneous, rest on his own reading and observation. 
While his description (App. A, X) and drawings add nothing appreciable to our knowledge of the 
state of the building at this time, they contain several points which had hitherto escaped notice. 
Pococke first called attention to the door in the west wall and to its irregular position, though his 
plan and view agree in placing it under the wrong column. He also remarked the ancient triple 
division of the interior, and the door leading into the Porch of the Maidens. His independence of 
tradition and reliance on his own judgment appear in his refusal to see subordinate temples in the 
north and south porticoes, and his consequent assumption that the second temple, which he found in 
Pausanias, must have totally disappeared. 

About the same time as Pococke an English surgeon, Dr. Charles Perry, who had been for many 
months in the Levant, stopped at Athens on his way to England from Alexandria. In 1743 he pub- 
lished his Vzew of the Levant, dedicated to Lord Sandwich, in which he gave the most space to Egypt 
and its monuments, as least familiar to English readers. The few pages on Athens are a medley of 
ignorance and carelessness,‘ and the account of the Erechtheum (App. A, XI) deserves citation only 
as a curiosity worthy of a place beside Fourmont’s drawing. 


1 A Voyage around the Mediterranean, Introduction, p. iii, from a letter of Lord Sandwich. Liotard’s known works 
include many portraits and costumes from the East, but no landscapes or monuments. See the list in Humbert, 
Revilliod et Tilanus, La vie et les ewres de J.-E. Liotard, Amsterdam, 1897. 

® See Dictionary of National Biography, s.n. ‘John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich.’ 

* See his letter to his mother from Corinth, Oct. 6/17, 1740, in the British Museum, MSS, Add. 22,998, fol. 192, 
letter xLvit1; it contains no details about the monuments. 

* Perry seems to have depended, when in Athens, exclusively upon local guides (he lodged with the British consul, 
Nicolas Logotheti) and to have refreshed his memory, while writing, from Wheler and Fanelli. Only with the eyes 
of the former can he have seen some remains of the Propylaea between the first and second gates of the Acropolis, 
and the Temple of Nike with its fluted Ionic columns and its sculptured frieze. Among other things we also learn that 
the inscription ‘over the Portal of the Palace” (i.e., the Arch of Hadrian) is in J talian, and that the monument of 
Philopappus is “the Fagade of the Museum of the Greeks, called Scegio.” 


APPENDIX B 607 


TV. Sruart ano Revert! 


Stuart and Revett drew up the first “Proposals” of their project to study the monuments of 
Athens as early as 1748, during their stay in Rome, but, owing to delay in obtaining the necessary 
funds and the difficulty of securing passage to Greece, they did not reach Athens until March 18, 
1751. Their visit was cut short by disturbances in the city and a serious quarrel with their host, the 
British consul, Logotheti, and on September 20, 1753, Stuart went to Salonica, whither Revett 
followed him on January 27, 1754. After spending considerable time there, they returned slowly via 
the Aegean islands and Smyrna to England, arriving early in the following year.2 Seven years 
elapsed, however, before, in 1762, the first volume of their great work, containing only buildings in 
the lower town, appeared. Then followed a still longer delay, for Stuart had now bought Revett’s 
interest and taken the entire publication into his own hands. It was 1787 before the plates of the 
Erechtheum were even partially engraved, and at Stuart’s death in 1788 the second volume, devoted 
entirely to the Acropolis, was still incomplete. Finally, by the aid of William Newton, it was brought 
out in the following year. The text for the Erechtheum seems to have been written by Stuart, but 
not all the plates had been engraved, and for some of them no finished drawings had been made, 
though the gaps could fortunately be filled by recourse to Stuart’s (or Revett’s) sketches and memo- 
randa.® A drawing of the Erechtheum from the northeast, described by Stuart in the text, could not 
be found, and was replaced by one from the same point by Pars. 

The chief importance of Stuart and Revett’s work at the time of its publication lay, of course, 
in the careful architectural drawings, which for the first time brought an adequate knowledge of 
Greek architecture to western Europe. For the Erechtheum these include eighteen plates, containing 
all that seemed to the authors necessary for an appreciation of the building. Their attitude as to the 
relative importance of details and the desirability of complete presentation becomes clear when we 
find that, while all the elements of the orders are carefully and even minutely measured, the number 
of courses in the east and north walls (II, Ch. II, pls. IV, VII) and, in the former plate, the relation 
of these courses to the Porch of the Maidens and to the North Portico is incorrectly given. 
Such matters were evidently deemed of little value, since there could have been no serious difficulty 
in ascertaining the facts. 

Stuart’s text, though far more detailed than anything which had yet been written, except Chan- 
dler’s account, is very brief about actual conditions (App. A, XII), and is chiefly concerned with the 
testimony of Pausanias and other ancient writers about the original building. His interpretation is 
generally the same as Chandler’s, to whose book he was probably indebted, and calls for no discus- 
sion here. 

The papers and drawings of Stuart and Revett for their work on Athens have for the most part 
disappeared. Stuart’s water-colors, and a few rough sketches and notes, are in the Library of the 
Royal Institute of British Architects,! and the British Museum contains two volumes of papers 
(MSS, Add. 22,152 and 22,153) concerning Stuart and Revett. There is, however, very little from 
the hand of either, and all that relates to the Erechtheum belongs to a much later date (see App. 
C, No. 55). 

1 For the visit of Lord Charlemont, and the valuable work of his artist, Richard Dalton, see Chap. V, pp. 538 ff. 

2 For a history of this undertaking see the Prefaces to Vols. I and IV of The Antiquities of Athens; A. Michaelis, 
Der Parthenon, pp. 69 and 99. 

8 According to Newton’s Introduction (Vol. II, p. iv), plates IV, VU, and XX (east and north elevations, and the 
back and profile of one of the Maidens) were engraved from Stuart’s finished outlines, while plates V, VI, and X (the 
base, capital, and entablature of the east column, and the base and capital of the anta; the reversed plan and sections 
of the east capital; and the west elevation) were prepared from “the original sketches and dimensions.” In Vol. 
IV, Ch. V, pl. II are further architectural details from the East Portico, compiled from sundry sketches among 
Stuart’s papers and corrected from the Elgin marbles by Joseph Woods, the editor of the volume, which appeared only 
in 1816, although the plates are dated in 1810. 4 See above, Chap. V, p. 541, note 2. 


608 THE ERECHTHEUM 


V. Le Roy 


Julien-David Le Roy received the second prize in Architecture at the Royal Academy in Paris 
in 1749, the first prize in 1750,! and in August, 1751, was admitted, as pensionnaire, to the French 
Academy in Rome. He seems to have proved somewhat self-willed and insubordinate, but never- 
theless in 1754, near the end of his term as student, succeeded in procuring permission to visit Greece. 
Although he left Venice in May, he spent so much time in Constantinople that it was not until Feb- 
ruary, 1755, that he reached Athens.2 He was back in Rome in July, and left that city before the 
end of the month, apparently arriving in Paris not long after. So rapidly did he work that his book, 
a large folio, Les ruines des plus beaua monuments de la Gréce, appeared in 1758. Its success was im- 
mediate.’ A pirated edition in smaller form was quickly published in England, and the English plates, 
once more reduced in size, were brought out in Germany. A peculiarity of these editions was that 
the original engravings were so redrawn that two buildings appeared, reversed, on each plate, to the 
utter confusion of the natural surroundings.‘ The original plates, much reduced in size, were beauti- 
fully engraved by G. B. Cipriani in his Monumenti di Fabbriche antiche estratti der disegni det piu 
celebri autori, I1, 4, Vedute della Grecia.® 

Le Roy’s publication provoked sharp comment from Stuart, who not unnaturally considered it 
an unfair endeavor to anticipate and injure his own work, and in his first volume devoted no small 
space to correcting the author’s numerous errors. Le Roy replied to Stuart’s criticisms with con- 
siderable asperity,® but the controversy then dropped, since Stuart decided to ignore his rival in his 
later volumes.’ There can be little doubt that Le Roy published his book in competition with 
Stuart’s long-delayed work, though he does not seem to have planned his trip to Greece with this 
in view. There is no reference to it in the letters already noticed, where, indeed, Stuart is not even 
mentioned, and on April 7, 1755, he wrote from Greece to Caylus, in words that scarcely suggest 
rivalry: ‘Les étrangers qui voyagent ici ont obligation 4 MM. Stuard et Rivet [szc]. Ils ont décou- 
vert 4 Athénes des trésors cachés sous la terre ou dans d’espaisses murailles, et je ne doute point 
que leur ouvrage ne soit fort exact et fort beau.” § 

So popular was Le Roy’s work that in 1770 a second edition, corrigée et augmentée, appeared with 
a rearranged and partly rewritten text, but the same plates. The account of the Erechtheum was 
wholly changed, but not improved. In the first edition Le Roy had considered the building to be the 
“double temple” of Erechtheus described by Pausanias, having one temple at the upper level of the 


1 H. Lemonnier, Proces-verbaux de l’académie de U’architecture, pp. 128, 147. 

2 These facts are taken from the letters by and about Le Roy published in Montaiglon et Guiffrey, Correspondance 
des Directeurs de 1 Académie de France & Rome, X, pp. 229, 272, 282, 287, 295, 314. The trip to Greece appears in XI, 
pp. 15, 21, 23, 28, 503, though for this the chief source is Le Roy, Ruines, pp. 1f., 7, 48. Stuart’s statement (I, Pref- 
ace, p. vi, note) that Le Roy was already in Rome in 1748, when he and Revett first announced their plans, must be 
an error. The letters show that Le Roy arrived in Rome in June, 1751, some four months after Stuart had reached 
Athens. There is no mention of an earlier visit, and Le Roy’s language is that of a young artist seeing Rome for the 
first time. 

’ The work was presented to the Academy of Architecture, August 7, 1758, and on November 20 the Academy 
recommended the author for a vacant chair among the members of the second class, an unusual honor for so young a 
man (Lemonnier, op. cit., pp. 329, 334, 337). 

* Le Roy was justly irritated by this travesty; cf. his Observations sur les édifices des anciens peuples, p. 2. 

® The Brandegee Collection in the Library of the American Academy in Rome contains a volume of drawings 
reproducing the plates in Le Roy, but with variations in detail. The titles and other legends are in Italian. It is pos- 
sible that these drawings were made by or for Cipriani. The Italian text makes it improbable that they are the work 
of Le Roy himself. 

® Le Roy, Observations, pp. 3-17; Ruines, second edition, Preface. 

7 See Stuart and Revett, II, Introduction, p. 4. 

’ Bourlet de Vauxcelles, Lettres sur Constantinople de M. V Abbé Sevin, etc... . Le tout imprimé sur les originaux 
inédits, p. 109. 


ee eee ee 


APPENDIX B 609 


Kast Portico, the other at the lower level of the North. In the second he decided that it was more 
probable that the Erechtheum of Pausanias was on the south side of the Parthenon, and that the 
building to the north was the temple of Athena Polias with the adjacent temple of Pandrosus in the 
North Portico.! It is characteristic of Le Roy’s attitude toward the monuments that he devotes 
his text to the grounds for these and other theories, and says almost nothing of the actual condition 
of the building,” beyond the remark that the interior was so filled with débris that he could not 
search for the salt “well,” as to the existence of which he became very sceptical in the later edition. 
In addition to the plan of the Erechtheum in pl. III (plan of the Acropolis) and the view from the 
northwest in pl. V (PLate L, 3), details of the architecture are given in pls. XVI-XXI (second 
edition, XX VII-X XXII), including elevations of the east and west facades and of the Porch of the 
Maidens, as well as details of the capitals and bases of the columns of both North and East Porticoes, 
of the ceiling, entablature, and podium of the Porch of the Maidens, and of the entablature and anta 
capital at the west end. 


VI. Fauve 


Among the mass of papers and drawings left by Fauvel the Erechtheum occupies but a small 
place,’ yet during his several visits to Athens while in the service of the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, 
he seems to have given considerable time to examining it, though chiefly, it must be admitted, as 
a possible source of material for his collections. We are told that during his first visit (1781-1782) he 
and his companion, the architect and engineer Foucherot, were greatly attracted by the delicacy of 
the carving on the Erechtheum and carefully measured all its details;+ but their drawings have 
apparently disappeared with the other papers of Foucherot, who was the senior member of the 
party.®> His second long stay (1786-1787) was chiefly occupied in making casts of the reliefs of the 


1 This change of view appears not only in the descriptive text to pl. V, but in the key to the Plan of the Acropolis 
(pl. II). 


First edition Second edition 
Main Building. Temple d’Erecthée, qui étoit double. Temple d’Erecthée, ou plus vraisemblant de Mi- 
nerve Poliade. 
East Portico. Vestibule par lequel on entroit dans le Vestibule par lequel on entroit dans le Temple. 
Temple supérieur. 
North Portico. Vestibule par lequel on entroit dans le | Temple de Pandrose. 


Temple inférieur. 

Porch of the Maidens. Espéce de Vestibule soutenu par des _ Petit monument construit contre le Temple de 
Cariatides et appuyé contre le corps Minerve Poliade, et dont l’entablement est 
du Temple. soutenu par des Canéphores ou des Caryatides. 


2 It is for this reason that no citation from Le Roy is given in Appendix A. 

3 The significant references to the Erechtheum in Fauvel’s letters and notes are collected in Appendix A, XIV. 

4 Legrand, Gal. ant., p. 74: ‘“MM. Fauvel et Foucherot en ont de nouveau relevé tous les details et ne se las- 
soient point d’admirer la finesse de leur exécution.” 

5 Legrand, R. Arch., XXX, 1897, pp. 438-47. Some of these drawings may have survived in a volume in the 
Louvre, which formerly belonged to Choiseul-Gouffier, and contains illustrative material for the continuation of the 
Voyage pittoresque. Some of the drawings are certainly by L.-F. Cassas and the collection passes under his name, but 
it is difficult to find a place in his Eastern travels for the numerous views in Athens and other parts of Greece. We 
know that he spent two days in Athens in 1784 while accompanying Choiseul to Constantinople; that from October, 
1784, to January, 1786, he was travelling in Asia Minor, Syria, and Lower Egypt; that in July, 1786, he was in the 
Troad with Le Chevalier; and finally that in February, 1787, he arrived in Rome, where he remained until his return 
to Paris in 1792 (R. Pourtalis, Les dessinateurs d’illustrations au XVIII® siécle, I, pp. 53-57; M.-J. Dumesnil, Histoire 
des plus célébres amateurs francais, III, pp. 211-245, containing letters of Cassas to 8.-A. Desfriches). If the drawings 
are by him, they must have been made on his journey from Constantinople to Rome, although he nowhere refers to 
any second visit to Greece. The volume contains a colored drawing signed by Foucherot, and a map by Kauffer, so 
that, in default of positive evidence, the conjecture may be allowed that the Greek drawings belong to the only artists 
whom we know to have worked for Choiseul in Greece proper. The drawings of the Erechtheum (see App. C, No. 13) 


610 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Parthenon and Theseum, but he found time to include also the principal order and some of the 
mouldings of the Erechtheum and a Caryatid.t A suggestion of Choiseul’s, now French Ambassador 
at the Porte, that he should use his firman to secure some of the original reliefs, or even a Caryatid, 
seems to have met with no response from Fauvel.? He also found time, under the stimulus of in- 
quiries from Foucherot, to excavate a little in the Erechtheum, and was agreeably surprised to dis- 
cover a pavement, though his endeavors to induce the Turks of the Acropolis to search for the 
§édacca were thwarted by local disturbances.? It is, however, during his next visit to Athens (Sep- 
tember 17, 1788, to April 27, 1789) that we hear most about the Erechtheum. In his absence the Turks 
had searched in vain for the ‘‘well’”’ of which he had told them, but in their digging had so far cleared 
the interior as to show Fauvel inscriptions built into the walls, and convince him of the presence of 
extensive Christian alterations. He began, however, by making a cast of another Caryatid,® and it 
was only when urged by Choiseul,® who was eager to secure the inscriptions, which he supposed were 
in the late pavement — though Fauvel had not said so — that he turned collector, and in Decem- 
ber, 1788, ‘‘stole’’ — it is his own word — three fragments of the green marble columns and a little 
later took two inscriptions 7 from the Erechtheum. In January, 1789, he partially cleared and meas- 
ured the Porch of the Maidens and prepared the plan and sections already noticed. In February, 
having by this time won over the Turkish authorities, he removed openly and transported to the 
Piraeus a complete column of green marble, a large fragment of another, and an inscription.® With 


do not add materially to the picture of the building, though they throw some light on the anthemion of the north 
capital of the East Portico (Ch. II, p. 217) and on the presence of a late wall between the statues of the Porch of the 
Maidens (Ch. V, p. 550). 

1 App. A, XIV, 3, 4. 

2 App. A, XIV, 1. Fauvel nowhere refers to this suggestion, and it is doubtful whether he approved of removing 
sculpture which was still in situ, though he certainly had no scruples about acquiring detached specimens. 

3 App. A, XIV, 2, 4. On the rough plan of the Acropolis (Fig. 218), which was made about this time, see above 
Chap. V, p. 545. Fauvel’s activity during this period is remarkable. He reached Athens in May, 1786, without 
any experience in making casts, yet on February 1, 1787, Gaspary, the French consul, reported that he had finished 
his work (which was not quite true), and on February 6 he shipped 26 (or 28) cases of casts to Marseilles (Gaspary, 
published by Rayet, B. Soc. Ant. Fr., 1884, p. 55; ef. Nowv. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 1, 3). Twelve more cases, including the 
casts from the Erechtheum, followed in September (App. A, XIV, 4). It should be noted that the summary of Fauvel’s 
early work in Greece in Millin’s Magasin encyclopédique, 1802, VIII° Année, T. II, p. 240, does not distinguish be- 
tween the successive visits, and assigns to 1787 almost all that was accomplished before 1792. 

4 App. A, XIV, 5. This Turkish excavation is mentioned by Bisani, A Picturesque Tour through Part of Europe, 
Asia, and Africa, p. 66 (also Lettres sur divers Endroits de ’ Europe, l Asie, et V Afrique, p. 70): “A traveller having 
obtained permission of the aga to dig in the temple of Erecteus, with a view to discover the well. . . . they dug up two 
beautiful columns of ancient green marble, which are trod under foot, no one being at the trouble to elevate them.” 
Bisani was in Athens in the summer of 1788, and obviously refers to Fauvel’s search in 1787 and its Turkish sequel. 

5 App. A, XIV, 7. 

6 App. A, XIV, 6. 

7 App. A, XIV, 8. The fact that the figure 2 is due to a later correction in pencil, while in his letter of April 26, 
1789 (App. A, XIV, 9) Fauvel mentions only one inscription as left with the three fragments of green marble, suggests 
that the correction may be an error, and that only one inscription was taken in December. This suspicion is confirmed 
when we find in a “‘Cahier des Inscriptions” (Fonds fr. 22877, part I, fols. 92-117), containing inscriptions copied before 
1791, No. 137 (cbid., fol. 94), marked “‘trouvée dans le temple d’Erectée 4 Athénes et prise.” It is J. G., II, 1886 
(J.-M. App. Ep., No. 91) and is now in the Louvre (Fréhner, No. 62). Apart from the stone taken in February, 1789 
(see below, note 9), this is the only inscription noted as being from the Erechtheum, though in general the provenience 
is carefully recorded. 

8 Chap. V, pp. 546 f. Cf. App. A, XIV, 8. 

* According to the “Cahier des Inscriptions” this was the stone containing Nos. 144 and 145. Above No. 145 is 
written “ Cette inscription a été trouvée au temple d’Erectée et elle fut emportée le 16 Février, 1789,” and below, ‘Les 
deux inscriptions cy-dessus sont sur la méme pierre de 3 pieds de long.’”’ These inscriptions are J. @., III, 553 and 588 
(J.-M., App. Ep., No. 57 a,b). The stone has disappeared. Boeckh published one inscription from an imperfect copy, 
furnished by Akerblad, of uncertain date and source, C. I. G., 1, 359, and later (ibid. I, App., p. 911, Nos. 359 and 370 b) 
both from a complete copy by Fauvel, which had been sent him from St. Petersburg by Koehler. 


APPENDIX B 611 


these acquisitions he seems to have abandoned the Erechtheum as a profitable field of operations; 
at any rate it does not appear again in the record of his activities.! 

It remains to consider briefly the history of Fauvel’s collections from the Erechtheum. The first 
set of casts was shipped from Athens to Marseilles in 1788, arrived safely, and apparently shared the 
fate of Choiseul’s other property during the Revolution. His antiquities were confiscated and some 
were exhibited in the Louvre, but they were later restored to him, at any rate in part, and in the 
Sale Catalogue of his collection we find the cast of the Caryatid and a restored copy.2 The objects 
collected in 1788 and 1789, which were left somewhat scattered on Fauvel’s hasty flight from an out- 
break of the plague,’ were not removed from Athens until August, 1791, when fourteen cases of casts 
and marbles were taken to Smyrna on the corvette La Brune. The casts seem to have remained there, 
and to have been destroyed in the great fire of 1797,° but some of the marbles were forwarded to 
France, including the complete column of green marble and the large fragment found in February, 


1789, and one inscription from the Erechtheum,* as well as a number of the other objects reported 
by Fauvel as left in Athens in 1789. 


The second cast of a Caryatid, three fragments of the green columns, a considerable number of 
casts, and a few marbles were still in the Capuchin convent when Fauvel left Athens for Constanti- 
nople in March, 1792. He returned in 1793, but no longer as Choiseul’s agent. The rise of the 
Terror in France had driven the Ambassador to seek refuge in Russia, and Fauvel, who sympathized 


1 That the Erechtheum continued to interest Fauvei is made certain by the late notes added to his plan (Chap. 
V, p. 547, note 3), by the information furnished Legrand (App. A, XIV, 13), and by sundry brief references in his 
papers. There is, however, no mention of any special attention to the building, nor is there any further information 
about its condition, apart from the references to Lord Elgin’s operations (App. A, XIV, 12). 

2 J. J. Dubois, Catalogue d’antiquités égyptiennes, grecques, romaines et celtiques ... formant la collection du feu 
M. le Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, Paris, 1818, Nos. 313, 314. The casts of architectural details are not in the cata- 
logue, and their fate is unknown. 

3 App. A, XIV, 9. According to this letter the objects found in February were at Piraeus in the warehouse of 
Kairac (or Cayrac), a French merchant; those taken in December were in Athens in keeping of another French mer- 
chant, Giraud; while the cast of the Caryatid was in the Capuchin convent at the monument of Lysicrates. The ap- 
parent discrepancy in the number of inscriptions (one with Giraud, two with Kairac) is easily explained, if only one 
was found in December and two on one stone in February (p. 610, notes 7, 9). 

4 App. A, XIV, 10. Although Fauvel’s note refers only to casts and fragments of green marble columns, it is 
certain that many of the other objects mentioned in his letter of April 26, 1789 (Nowv. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 12, 13), in- 
cluding the slab from the frieze of the Parthenon and busts and marble vases from Marathon, reached France in 
safety. It seems fair to infer that they formed part of the shipment by La Bruive, since neither in Fauvel’s papers, 
nor in Gaspary’s correspondence (Rayet, B. Soc. Ant. Fr., 1884, pp. 54-59), nor in the list of shipments collected from 
the records at Marseilles (Espérandieu, Mém. Soc. Ant. Fr., Sér. 6, Vol. VIII, 1898, p. 163) is there any record of a 
shipment from Athens after September, 1788, except those on La Brune and L’Arabe (in 1803). That La Brune went 
to Smyrna is stated by Fauvel in a letter to Choiseul, September 4, 1791 (Now. acg. fr. 7558, fol. 24). As early as 
February 6, Choiseul had informed Fauvel that he was going to write De Terrasse, who commanded La Brune, to take 
the casts from Athens to Smyrna (Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 172). 

5 On this fire at Smyrna see Cousinéry to Fauvel, April 2, 1797 (Fonds fr. 22873, fols. 238, 242); Fauvel to Choiseul, 
May 20, 1803 (Now. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 32 f.); Dubois, Catalogue d’antiquités, Préface, p. viii. The number of 
cases burned is variously given as 12, 14, and 25. It seems highly probable that the stone with the two inscriptions 
from the Erechtheum perished in this fire. It was at the Piraeus, and must surely have been taken by La Brune 
with the other things in Kairac’s warehouse. 

6 Dubois, Catalogue d’antiquités, No. 463: “Marbre vert, antique. Une colonne antique de la plus belle 
proportion. Envoyée d’Athénes, par M. Fauvel. Hauteur, 2.94 m., D. 33 cm.”; No, 464: ‘‘“Méme matiére que la 
précedente. Une colonne antique, rompue vers sa partie supérieure. Envoyée d’Athénes, par M. Fauvel. Hauteur. 
2.17 m., D. 37 cm.”; No. 465: “Méme matiére. Un fragment de colonne antique, envoyé d’Athénes, par M. Fauvel, 
Hauteur, 1.35 m., D. 36 cm.”’ From the dimensions it appears that Nos. 463 and 465 were the two taken in February, 
1789, to the Piraeus. No. 464 is not mentioned by Fauvel and may possibly have been sent by Gaspary. ‘The 
catalogue is hardly conclusive evidence on such a point. From the dimensions it seems to have come from the 
Erechtheum. There is no record, apparently, of the purchaser of these marbles. The inscription, as has been said 
(p. 610, note 7), was acquired by the Louvre. 


612 THE ERECHTHEUM 


with the revolution,! soon after his return to Athens in 1793 sequestrated his old employer’s collec- 
tion as security for arrears of salary, and also, as he and his friends asserted, to save it from confis- 
cation as the property of an émigré. The latter motive, however, did not prevent him from selling 
it to the Directory in 1796 for 2000 piastres.? Before it could be removed, Bonaparte’s expedition 
to Egypt and the war with Turkey led to the arrest and later to the expulsion of all the French in 
Athens, and Fauvel’s ultimate return to France in 1801.‘ 

About this time also Choiseul, having made his peace with the government, returned to France, 
recovered in large part his confiscated property, and resumed friendly relations with Fauvel.' Ac- 
cordingly when the latter returned to Athens in January, 1803, as vice-consul (sows-commissazre),® 
he prepared to ship the collections which had been so long under the seal of the Republic, and which 
an order from Talleyrand, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, directed should be returned to their 
former owner.’ Accordingly on May 24, 1803, he embarked on the corvette L’Arabe 26 boxes, in- 
cluding the cast of the Caryatid, and the three small fragments of the green marble columns, for- 
merly in the keeping of Giraud. The corvette was captured by a British frigate and taken to Malta. 
Her cargo was later sold as prize in London,’ when Lord Elgin’s agents bought some of the marbles, 
but the fate of the Caryatid and of the green marble fragments is unknown. 


VII. GEL 


Sir William Gell travelled in Greece, Asia Minor, and the Ionian Islands during the opening years 
of the nineteenth century, but the exact dates of his several visits to Athens are apparently un- 
recorded. One of the drawings of the Erechtheum (Fig. 219) is dated in 1800, and he was also there 
with Dodwell in July, 1801,!° when he probably made the drawing (Fig. 220), which shows the Porch 
of the Maidens as cleared by Lusieri. None of the drawings was made after the removal of the 
Elgin marbles in 1803, in which year, indeed, Gell returned to England.“ His drawings, in thirteen 
volumes and a packet of loose sheets, are now in the Department of Prints and Drawings of the 
British Museum.” The drawings of the Erechtheum are all in Volume XIII, a strongly bound sketch- 
book. In addition to the four here published (Figs. 219-222) are two [106 (75), 121 (92)| showing 
the inside of the Porch of the Maidens, and the inside of the East Portico, but they are unfinished 
and add nothing of value. 


1 Legrand, R. Arch., XXX, 1897, p. 186. 

2 App. A, XIV, 11, c. On Fauvel’s motives see also the letters of Cousinéry, January 11 and June 30, 1794 (Fonds 
fr. 22873, fols, 212, 220), which show that Fauvel’s action had given great offence to Choiseul and his friends, and 
Fauvel’s letters to Choiseul, January 9 and February 14, 1804 (Now. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 35, 37). Gaspary, reporting 
the sequestration on June 22, 1796, says the collection included 23 boxes and sundry marbles at the former Capuchin 
convent (Rayet, B. Soc. Ant. Fr,, 1884, p. 57). 

* Legrand, op. cit., pp. 190 ff. Cf. Cousinéry to Fauvel, August 22, 1797 (Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 245). 

* Legrand, op. cit., pp. 195 ff.; A. H. Smith, J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, p. 195. 

> See Fauvel’s letters to Choiseul, October 15, 1802, May 20 and 27, 1803 (Now. acq. fr. 7558, fols. 30, 32; Fonds 
fr. 22871, fol. 155), and those cited in note 2, above; Cousinéry’s letter, December 13, 1803 (Fonds fr. 22873, fol. 255); 
Legrand, op. cit., p. 199. 

6 Legrand, op. cit., pp. 199-201; Fonds fr. 22877, part 1, fol. 13. 

7 Fauvel to Choiseul and Talleyrand, May 20, 1803 (Nowv. acg. fr. 7558, fols. 32-34). Fauvel protested repeatedly 
that the intervention of the Minister was wholly unnecessary, and that he had always intended to restore everything 
to Choiseul, including his own acquisitions between 1793 and 1801; see the letters cited above. He is silent about 
his sale to the Republic in 1796. 

8 App. A, XIV, 11, a, b, c. 

* App. A, XIV, 11, d,e. The capture of L’ Arabe, the disposal of her cargo, and Choiseul’s efforts to recover his 
property are fully discussed by A, H. Smith, J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, pp. 356 ff. See also Legrand, op. cit., p. 389. 

0 A. H. Smith, J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, p. 195. See also Dodwell, Tour, I, p. 2. 

4 See Dictionary of National Biography, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, s. n. ‘Gell’. 


és ; The contents of the bound volumes are fully given in the Catalogue of Drawings by British Artists, Vol. II, s. n. 
‘Gell’. 


APPENDIX B 613 


Gell had studied painting, and a number of his drawings are skilfully executed, though scarcely 
“with great detail and exactness,” ! but his sketches of the Erechtheum are very poor examples of 
his ability, being little more than a somewhat hasty record of things that interested him. Consider- 
ing the obstacles which the Turkish authorities about this time put in the way of Elgin’s artists and 
of Dodwell, it is extremely probable that Gell worked under difficult and hampering conditions which 
go far to explain many of his defects.2, The disregard of perspective, proportion, and especially of 
all architectural detail, such as courses, mouldings, and ornamentation, is obvious and so clearly 
marked that it is not difficult, after comparison with other works and the existing remains, to make 
due allowance for the errors thus produced. It would be absurd to attach much weight to details 
or to be concerned over inconsistencies, such as the difference in the entablature of the northeast 
angle as shown in Figures 219 and 222, where the former is certainly nearer the truth.’ If, however, 
Gell was careless as to minute accuracy, he seems to have avoided deliberate elimination of the 
modern, and there are only two fairly certain cases of restoration: the insertion of the return of the 
architrave at the southwest corner along the south wall (Fig. 220), although this block had disap- 
peared at least fifty years earlier, and the presence on the west entablature of the frieze (Fig. 219), 
which is missing in Gell’s other drawings, and indeed is found so far south only in Stuart (PLATE 
LI, 1). Yet in ‘spite of all their defects these drawings have a very real importance in the docu- 
mentary history of the Erechtheum, since through them alone is it possible to determine with some 
degree of precision the gradual disintegration since the days of Dalton and Pars, and the amount of 
injury wrought by Lusieri and his assistants. 


1 As stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 

2 According to E. D. Clarke (Travels, II, p. 211, note 2), “Mr. Gell . . . . was actually interdicted making drawings 
within the Acropolis of Athens” by Lord Elgin’s agents; but Clarke was bitterly hostile to the ambassador, and in 
1800, at any rate, Lusieri and his assistants were themselves hampered in every way by the Turkish authorities, so 
that they were hardly in a position to interfere with Gell. In 1805 Dodwell was certainly not troubled by anybody 
except the Disdar. 

3 It is possible to interpret Figure 222 as showing on the north side only the architrave with very exaggerated 
heaviness in the fasciae and mouldings, while the curious drawing of the inside of the frieze over the columns might 
be accounted for by the survival of an interbeam in situ. Carelessness is, however, a more probable explanation. 


APPENDIX C 


CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SOURCES LATER THAN 1750 


A comMPLETE bibliography of the Erechtheum would include, in addition to specific studies of the 
building and its parts, practically all works on Greek architecture or sculpture, as well as the numerous 
descriptions of Athens and its monuments by modern travellers. Even if such a bibliography could 
be compiled, its very completeness would largely destroy its utility, since, quite apart from its 
unwieldy bulk, it must needs include much that is mere compilation, derived from neither direct 
observation nor independent investigation. Since, therefore, some elimination is necessary and the 
personal opinion of the compiler is an unsatisfactory basis of choice, it has seemed better to exclude 
altogether certain categories and to make the list as complete as possible within restricted limits, 
even though these cannot be so rigidly determined that some inconsistencies in selection may not 
have crept in. Accordingly, all histories of Greek architecture and sculpture have been omitted, also 
encyclopedias and dictionaries of classical antiquities, reviews, and all books of travel later than 1852. 
For the period of restoration in the second quarter of the last century a selection has been made 
from many, generally rather unsatisfactory, descriptions by visitors, but in the interval between 
Lord Elgin’s work and the Greek revolution only those travellers have been passed over who, like 
Chateaubriand and Pouqueville, confined themselves to purely perfunctory notices, while the record 
from 1750 to 1803 is intended to be complete. Manuscript notes, drawings, and paintings, especially 
if made before the restorations by Pittakis and others, are, of course, included, although here the 
catalogue doubtless contains many gaps, but photographs, even when united in such valuable publi- 
cations as those of Stillman and Boissonnas, are omitted. Furthermore, it has seemed best to ex- 
clude the numerous works called forth by the discovery of the Hecatompedon and the ensuing 
‘“‘Old Temple” controversy, in spite of the references in them to the Erechtheum and its history. 

As the special bibliographies of the sculptures and inscriptions have already been given in Chap- 
ters III and IV, the titles have not been repeated here, except in a few cases where the inscriptions 
are studied primarily as an aid in the reconstruction of the building. 


1751-1752 


1. Ricnarp Datron. A Series of Engravings representing Views in Sicily, Greece, Asia Minor, 
and Egypt. London. 


In Athens, 1749. See Ch. V, pp. 588 ff.; Pharr L, 1, 2. The engravings were republished in 1791 under 
the title Antiquities and Views in Greece and Egypt. 


1751-1753 


2. James Stuart. ‘The Erechtheum from the southwest,” a water-color in the Library of the 
Royal Institute of British Architects, London. 


See Ch. V, pp. 541 f.; PLare LI, 1. 
The library also contains four sheets with diagrams and notes by Stuart on the construction of the Ionic 
volute of the Erechtheum. 


1758 


3. JULIEN-Davip LE Roy. Les ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Gréce. Paris. 


In Athens, 1755. Hrechtheuwm, pp. 8,10, 11. See Ch. V, p. 542; App. B, V; Puate L, 3; also Nos. 4, 
5, 6, 8. 


10. 


Li; 


iz: 


13. 


APPENDIX C 615 


1759 


Rospert Sayer. Ruins of Athens, with Remains and other valuable Antiquities in Greece. 
London. 


A pirated edition of Le Roy, with two views combined on each plate and reversed. See Nos. 3, 5, 6. 


1764 


GrorG CuristopH Kinian. Ruinen und Ueberbleibsel von Athen nebst andern merkwiirdigen 
Alterthiimern Griechenlands, herausgegeben von M. R. Sayer, mit einem . . . kurz verfassten his- 
torischen Auszuge nach dem... englischen Original verfertigt. Augsburg. 


. Grore CuristopH Kinian. Also a Latin version, Ruinas Athenarum una cum reliquiis atque 


antiquitatibus Graeciae ‘aliis excudit Robertus Sayer Calcographus Anglus Londini. Nune ad 
Exemplar Anglum . . . expressit atque excudit Georgius Christophorus Kilianus Calcographus 
Augustanus. 


Reduced copies of Sayer’s version of Le Roy’s plates. See Nos. 3, 4. 


1765-1766 


WitiiaM Pars. “The Erechtheum from the northeast,’ a water-color in the Department 
of Prints and Drawings, British Museum. 
See Ch. V, p. 544; Puare LI, 2. 
1770 


JULIEN-Davip LE Roy. Les ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Gréce. Second edition. 
Paris. 
Erechtheum, pp. 7, 8, 11, 12. See No. 3. 


1773 


[JoHANN HERMANN VON RIEDESEL.] Remarques d’un voyageur moderne au Levant. Amster- 
dam. 
In Athens, 1768. Hrechtheum, p. 122. See also Nos. 10, 29. 


1774 


[JoHANN HERMANN von RIEpDESEL.] Bemerkungen auf einer Reise nach der Levant. Leipzig. 


Erechtheum, p. 100. Apart from some misprints the text agrees with that of the French edition. See 
also Nos. 9, 29. 


1776 


Ricuarp CHanpueR. Travels in Greece or an Account of a Tour made at the expense of the 
Society of Dilettanti. Oxford. 


In Athens, August 31, 1765, to June 11, 1766. Erechthewm, pp. 52-55, 57, 58. See Ch. V, pp. 543 i 
App. A, XIII; also Nos. 12, 32, 76. 


1777 


Ricuarp CHANDLER. Reisen in Griechenland. Aus dem Englischen tibersetzt. Leipzig. 
This translation, by J. H. Voss and H. C. Boie, contains no additional notes on the Erechtheum. See 
No. 11. 
1784 (?) 
Drawings made for the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier by Cassas and others, now in the Louvre. 
See App. B, VI, p. 609, note 5. 


616 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


Erechtheum: p. 48, east elevation, partly restored, with many measurements; p. 89, the Erechtheum from 
the northwest, drawn from a point close to the North Portico; p. 105, the four Caryatids on the south, 
drawn singly without any indication of the podium or architrave (see p. 550, note 2); pp. 136-142, carefully 
measured drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, of the corner capitals of the East and North 
Porticoes and of a capital of the West Fagade; p. 147, details of the anthemion on the lintel of the North Door 
and on the epicranitis. 


1785 


14. Wituny Reveutey. “The Erechtheum and Temple of Minerva Polias” and “Southeast 


View of the Erechtheum’”’; two drawings made for Sir Richard Worsley and formerly at 


Brocklesby Park. 

In Athens, May 10 to July 1, 1785. Reveley, an architect and the editor of the third volume of Stuart 
and Revett, accompanied as artist Sir Richard Worsley on his tour of the Levant, and his finished drawings 
formed part of the collection at Appuldurcombe House on the Isle of Wight, and later passed by inheritance 
to the Earl of Yarborough (A. H. Smith, A Catalogue of Antiquities in the Collection of the Earl of Yarborough 
at Brocklesby Park, London, 1897, pp. 2, 6). They perished in a fire which seriously damaged Brocklesby 
Hall. The two drawings of the Erechtheum are recorded in the list of drawings belonging to Worsley in 
A Catalogue Raisonné of the principal Paintings, Sculptures, Drawings, etc., etc., at Appuldurcombe House, the 
seat of the Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Worsley, Bart., taken June 1, 1804, p.41. Reveley evidently kept copies of 
his drawings, for two views of the Erechtheum, from the southeast and southwest, appear in the catalogue of 
his books and drawings sold by Christie, May 11, 1801. According to The Gentleman's Magazine, LX XI, 
p. 419, the drawings were sold singly and widely scattered. A folio volume, entitled MS. Notes on Archi- 
teclure by W. Reveley was bought at the sale by a Mr. Bowyer for 28 guineas, and is now in the Library of 
the Royal Institute of British Architects. It contains extracts and notes on buildings, chiefly in Italy, a 
journal covering the first months of his tour with Worsley (unfortunately with nothing about Athens except 
the dates of their arrival and departure), and the printed catalogue of the sale at Christie’s. The drawings 
at Brocklesby Hall were apparently never critically examined, but the engravings after Reveley in the 
second volume of the Museum Worsleyanum do not give a very favorable impression of his ability as a 
painter of landscape; see A. H. Smith, J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, p. 167. 


1789 


15. Louts-FRANGoIS-SEBASTIAN Fauvet. Plan, Interior Elevations, and Architectural Details. 


Bibliothéque Nationale, Département des Estampes, G b. 15, fol. 65; 15, a, fols. 12-17. 
See Ch. V, pp. 546 f. 


16. JAMES Stuart AND Nicnonas Revert. The Antiquities of Athens measured and delineated. 


Vol. II. London. 


In Athens, 1751-1754. EHrechthewm, ch. II; 20 plates. See Ch. V, pp. 541 f.; App. A, XII; App. B, 
IV; also Nos. 37, 43, 79, 84. 

The title-page of the volume bears the date 1787, but the frontispiece, an engraved medallion portrait 
of Stuart, is marked August 1, 1789; some of the plates are dated in 1787, others in 1789. 


1791 


17. [ALtEssanpro Bisant.] Lettres sur divers endroits de V Europe, de lV Asie, et de l Afrique, par- 


courus en 1788 et 1789. London. 
In Athens, 1788. Hrechtheum, pp. 69, 70. See No. 19. 


1792 


18. THomas Watkins. Travels through Switzerland, Italy, Sicily, the Greek Islands, to Constan- 


tenople; through part of Greece, Ragusa, and the Dalmatian Isles; in a Series of Letters to 
Penoyre Watkins, Esq... . in the years 1787, 1788, 1789. 2 vols. London. 
In Athens, December, 1788. Hrechtheum, II, pp. 285-288. 


He considers that the Caryatids were erected in mockery of Artemisia of Caria. A second edition, un- 
altered in the passage describing the Erechtheum (II, pp. 295-298), appeared in 1794. 


1S. 


20. 


21. 


22. 


23. 


24. 


25. 


26. 


27. 


APPENDIX C 617 


1793 


LALESsANDRO Bisant.] A Picturesque Tour through Part of Europe, Asia, and Africa: con- 
taining many new remarks on the present state of society, remains of ancient edifices, etc. With 
Plates after designs by James Stuart, ... Written by an Italian Gentleman. London. 


Erechtheum, pp. 67, 68. See No. 17. 
The plates are reduced copies of the views in Stuart’s first volume. 


1795 


JoHN Bacon Sawrey Morrirr. Letter from Athens, January 18-22, 1795. 


See Letters of John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby: Descriptive of Journeys in Europe and Asia Minor in the years 
1794-1796. Edited by G. E. Marindin (London, 1914), pp. 175, 176. 


1799 


GIOVANNI Barvista Crprtant. Monumenti di Fabbriche antiche estratti dei disegni dei pit 
celebri autort. Roma. 


Erechtheum, I, § 7. ‘Tempi di Minerva Poliade, di Pandrosa, Cariatide, e Propilei in Atene.” 
The nine engravings are copied, with minor fanciful changes, from Le Roy; see App. B, V, p. 608, note 5. 


JoHN Montagu, Hart or Sanpwicnu. A Voyage... round the Mediterranean, etc. London. 
In Athens, 1739. See App. A, IX; App. B, III. 


SAVERIO ScROFANI. V2aggio in Grecia: fatto nell’ anno 1794-1795. 2 vols. London. 


In Athens, September, 1794. Hrechtheum, II, pp. 104-110. See No. 27. 
His account of the Erechtheum is diffuse, obscure, and very inaccurate. It contributes nothing to our 
knowledge of the building or of its condition. 


1799-1801 


MicHEL-FRANCOIS PREAULX (or PREAUX). “‘The East Portico of the Erechtheum from the 
north,” etched in Clarke’s Travels (No. 42), III, p. 498; ““The Erechtheum from the north- 
west,” a water-color, formerly in the possession of a Parisian dealer in antiquities. 


In Athens, 1799 with Tweddell. 
See Clarke, T'ravels, III, p. 544, note 3; A. Boppe, Les peintres du Bosphore au dix-huitiéme siécle, pp. 188, 
200-205, 223-226; and above, Ch. V, p. 548, note 1. 


1800— 


Sir Witt1am Get. Drawings in the British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings. 
See App. B, VII, and Figs. 219-222. 


1800-1803 


Smpastiano Irrar. Drawings made for Lord Elgin, now in the British Museum, Department 


of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 

Vol. I contains a plan, and finished drawings of the East, West, and North Elevations, the North Door, 
and architectural details of the North Portico. All are restorations with a somewhat free use of the imagi- 
nation, and are inaccurate in the rendering of existing details. There are no studies of the Erechtheum 
among the working drawings in Vol. V. See App. A, XVI, and also A. H. Smith, J. H.S., XXXVI, 1916, 


po. 254, 294. 
1801 


Xavier Scrorani. Voyage en Gréce de Xavier Scrofani, Sicilien, fart en 1794 et 1795; traduit 
de Vitalien, par J. F. C. Blainvillain, etc. 3 vols. Paris et Strasbourg. 


Erechtheum, I, pp. 74-79, See No. 23. 


618 THE ERECHTHEUM 


1802 


28. JEAN-BaApTIsTE LECHEVALIER. Voyage de la Troade; fait dans les années 1785 et 1786. Trot- 
siéme édition. Revue, corrigée et considérablement augmentée. 3 vols. Paris. 
In Athens, 1784, with Choiseul-Gouffier. Hrechtheum, I, pp. 155, 156. 
Very brief and unimportant mention. Athens was not described in the earlier editions. 
29, JonanNn HERMANN von RiIEDESEL. Voyage en Sicile, dans le Grande Gréce, et au Levant par 
M. le Baron de Riedesel, etc. Paris. 


Erechtheum, pp. 282, 283. See Nos. 9, 10. 
The description of the Erechtheum shows only minor verbal changes from that in the edition of 1773. 


1803 
30. Str Ropert SmirKE. Water-color drawing in the Library of the Royal Institute of British 
Architects. 
See Ch. V, p. 548, note 2; Puate LI, 3. 
1806 


31. Lovuis-Francors Cassas. Models of the Erechtheum and of the Porch of the Maidens. See 
Collection des chefs-d’oewre de Varchitecture des différens peuples exécutés en modeles sous la 
direction de L.-F. Cassas . . . décrite et analysée par J.-G. Legrand. Paris. 

Erechtheum, pp. 95, 96. No. 16, “Temple de Minerve-Polias, d’Erechthée, et de la vierge Pandrose, 
réunis dans la citadelle d’Athénes’’; No. 17, ‘‘Peristyle du Temple précédent.”’ The text shows that the 
latter is the Porch of the Maidens. 

32. RicHarRD CHANDLER. Voyages dans l'Asie Mineure et en Gréce .. . traduit par J. P. Servois et 
Barbié Du Bocage. 3 vols. Paris. 

Erechtheum, II, pp. 400 ff.; 546, notes. See No. 11. 

The five short notes add nothing of present value to Chandler’s description. 

33. THomas Gass. Finis Pyramidis; or, Disquisitions concerning the Antiquity and scientific end 
of the great Pyramid of Giza, or ancient Memphis in Egypt, and of the first standard of linear 
measure, etc. Retford. 

Erechtheum, pp. 267-272. 

A discussion of Vitruvius, IV, 7, with somewhat severe criticism of Stuart and of the inconsistency between 
his text and plates. See Ch. V, p. 471, note 1. 

34. JOHN PauMER. Journal of Travels in the East, 1805-1807. Six note-books in the Library of 

St. John’s College, Cambridge; Catalogue of Manuscripts, No. 466. 


Vol. III contains about a page of very brief and unimportant notes on the Erechtheum. Palmer was in 
Athens during the latter part of May and early June, 1806. 


1808 


35. JACQUES-GUILLAUME LEGRAND. Galerie antique, ou Collection des chefs-d’oewre d’ architecture, 
de sculpture, et de peinture antiques, etc. Tome Premier. Premiére division: Monumens de la 
Gréce. Tomel. Paris. 


No more published. Erechtheum, pp. 71-76. See App. A, XIV, 13. 


The plates are reduced copies of those in Stuart and Revett. The text is in part a translation of Stuart 
(pp. 71-73). 


1810 
36. [Tuomas Bruce, Earu or Exain.] Memorandum on the Subject of the Earl of Elgin’s Pur- 
suits in Greece. Edinburgh. 
Erechtheum, pp. 14-16. 


APPENDIX C 619 


This work is often wrongly attributed to William Hamilton; see A. H. Smith, J, H. S., XXXVI, 1916, 


p. 308, and note 273. The text relating to the Erechtheum remained unchanged in the later editions, pub- 
lished in 1811 and 1815. 


37. JAMES STUART AND Nicuoutas Reverr. Les Antiquités d’Athénes, mesurées et dessinées par 
J. Stuart et N. Revett, peintres et architectes. Owvrage traduit de Vanglais par L{aurent-] 
Flrangois| Flewillet] et publié par C. P. Landon, peintre, etc. Paris. 

Erechtheum, II, pp. 33-39; pls. XVIII-XXXIV. Sce No. 16. 


1810-1817 


38. Car, FretHerR HALLER von HaLierstTEern. Drawings and Note-books in the Bibliothéque 
de l’ Universitaire, Strasbourg (MSS 2720-2724). 

The drawings of the Erechtheum are aimost all careful renderings of architectural details, such as the 
plan from above and profiles of the roof of the Porch of the Maidens, the west elevation of this porch with 
the southern inter-columniation of the West Facade, the ceiling of the North Portico with the carving on 
the mouldings, and an elevation of the wall in the Portico. The notes are generally brief memoranda of 
minutiae, most of which seem to have escaped earlier observers; for examples see above, pp. 85 (glass beads 
and forked bronze pins in the capitals of the North Portico), 101 (inferiority of the carving on the lintel of 
the North Door), 227 (‘‘vernis noir” in the North Portico). There are no finished drawings showing the 


Erechtheum as it then was. On Haller’s drawings see Williams, Travels in Italy, Greece, and the Ionian 
Islands, II, pp. 330 ff. 


1811-1814 


39. CHARLES RoBERT CocKERELL. Drawing of the loft in the North Portico (Fig. 223). 


In Athens, 1811, 1813, 1814. See Miss C. A. Hutton, ‘A Collection of Sketches by C. R. Cockerell, 
R. A.,’ J. H. S., XXX, 1909, p. 55. 


1813 


40. Joun Cam Hosnouss (later Lorp Broueuton). A Journey through Albania, and other 
Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia during the years 1809 and 1810. London. 
In Athens, 1810. Erechtheum, pp. 343-346. See No. 157. 


41. CHarues-PauL Lanpon. Grandes vues pittoresques des principaux sites et monuments de la 
Gréce et de la Sicile et des sept collines de Rome, dessinées et gravées d Veau-forte, au trait, par 
MM. Cassas et Bence .. . expliquées par M. C.-P. Landon. Paris. 


Pl. II, “ Portique et Cariatydes [sic] du Temple de Pandrose 4 Athénes.”’ The Porch of the Maidens 
from the southwest, inaccurately restored. 


1814 


42. Epwarp DanrieL Ciuarke. Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa. Part IT, 
Greece, Egypt and the Holy Land. Section the Second. London. 
In Athens, 1801. Hrechtheum, Vol. III, pp. 496, 498 ff., 797; engraving after Préaux, p. 498. See 
App. A, XV. 
The later editions of Clarke’s Travels are unchanged in text, and are not catalogued. 


1816 


43. James Stuart AND Nicuoutas Revert. The Antiquities of Athens. Vol. IV, edited by 
Joseph Woods. London. 
Ch. V, pl. II. Details from the Erechtheum, chiefly variations in the carving on the antae; taken from 
a sketch-book of Stuart. The title-page bears the date 1816, but many of the plates were engraved in 1810. 
The material in this volume was not included in the second edition (No. 79) published by Kinnard. 


620 THE ERECHTHEUM 


44. Ennio Quirino Visconti. Lettre du Chev. Antonio Canova; et deux mémorres lus a I’ Institut 
royal de France sur les ouvrages de sculpture dans la collection de Mylord Comte d’Elgin par 
le Chev. E. Q. Visconti, etc. London. 

The Caryatid in the Elgin collection, pp. 112-117. 

The two memoirs were presented to the Institute on October 21 and November 10, 1815. They were 
also published separately at Paris in 1818, Mémoires sur des ouwvrages de sculpture du Parthénon, etc. (Cary- 
atid, pp. 88-92). The original drafts, in several versions, are in the Bibliothéque Nationale, MSS., Nouv. 
acq. fr. 5981, fols. 38, 46, 180, 133 (the fair copy). 


45. Ennio Quirino Visconti. A Letter from the Chevalier Antonio Canova: and Two Memoirs read 
to the Royal Institute of France on the Sculptures in the Collection of the Earl of Elgin: by the 
Chevalier E. Q. Visconti . . . translated from the French and Italian. London. 

“Caryatid of the Temple of Pandrosos,”’ pp. 118-123. 


46. Wriu1AmM WILkins. Atheniensia or Remarks on the Topography and Buildings of Athens. 
London. 

In Athens, 1802. Erechtheum: pp. 127-149, description; 193-218, the Greek text of the Chandler 
Inscription with an English translation and notes. In The Dictionary of National Biography it is stated that 
the first edition, in 12mo, appeared in 1812, and an edition in folio in 1816. I find no other record of either 
of these editions. 

The description of the building is intelligent and, on the whole, accurate. For his identification of the 
ancient divisions, which was generally accepted, see Ch. V, p. 543, note 5. His interpretation of the inscrip- 
tion was vitiated by his misunderstanding of the architectural terms. 


1817 


47. Francis Beprorp. ‘‘Temple of Minerva Pallas” (? Polias). Exhibited at the Royal Academy 
of Arts, London, 1817, No. 922. 


See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, I, s. n. 
This may possibly have been a painting of the Parthenon. 


48. Epwarp JoHn Burrow. The Elgin Marbles, with an abridged historical and topographical 
account of Athens. London. 


Erechtheum, pp. 180-183. The text, so far as concerns the Erechtheum, is a compilation, for Burrow 
had never been in Athens. The book also contains Stuart’s view of the Erechtheum from the southwest, 
and Visconti’s catalogue of the Elgin marbles. Its publication led to the controversy recorded under the 
following number. 


49. W. Wiuxkins anp E. J. Burrow. The Literary Gazette, I, 1, 1817, pp. 214, 266, 267, 332, 
355, 356, 409. Also, The Gentleman’s Magazine, LX XX XVII, ii, pp. 408 ff., 599 ff. (reprint 
of the first two articles in the Gazette). 


A controversial correspondence on sundry points in Athenian topography, in which the nature of the 
Porch of the Maidens was discussed, Wilkins maintaining that it was a portico, and Burrow that it was an 
adjunct to the main building, not an entrance. In his last article Wilkins claimed priority in the correct 
interpretation of the marginal numbers in the Chandler Inscription, as his article on this inscription (Wal- 
pole’s Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic Turkey, pp. 580-603) had been in Walpole’s hands for two 
years before the publication of Visconti’s explanation in the Museo Chiaramonte (see Ch. IV, p. 283). 


1818 


50. GrorGE BasEvi. Drawings made in Athens, now in Sir John Soane’s Museum, London. 


Three drawings of the Erechtheum: the west end from the southwest; the East Portico from within (these 
two drawings are unfinished in some details); the North Portico from the north (similar to, but much better 
than, Gell’s drawing, Fig. 222; see Ch. V, p. 554, note 5). 

For Basevi and his studies in Greece, see Arthur T. Bolton, ‘ Architectural Education a Century Ago,’ 
Journal R. I. B. A., XXX, 1923, pp. 569, 578. 


APPENDIX C 621 


51. Joun Bramsen. Letters of a Prussian Traveller; descriptive of a Tour through Sweden, Prussia, 
Austria, .. . the Morea, Greece, . . . interspersed with Anecdotes of distinguished Characters and 
Illustrations of political Occurrences. 2 vols. London. 

In Athens, 1814. Hrechtheum, II, pp. 83, 84. See Nos. 52, 56. 


A second edition, under the title Travels in Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, The Morea, Greece, Italy, etc., etc., was 
published in London in 1824, but the text and pagination are unchanged in the reference to the Erechtheum. 


52. JOHN BRAMSEN. Promenade d’un voyageur prussien en diverses parties de V Europe, de lV’ Asie et 
de V’ Afrique, en 1813, 1814, et 1815 en forme de lettres. 2 vols. Paris. 
Erechtheum, II, pp. 88, 89. See No. 51. 


53. Witt1aM Page. Oil Painting of the Erechtheum from the southwest (PLATE LII, 3). 


This painting was exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, in 1825 (No. 977). It later passed into the 
possession of Sir Walter Campbell, K. C. V. O., and was sold at Christie’s, May 19, 1916. It is now in the 
Gennadeion, American School of Classical Studies, at Athens. See Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, VI, s.n. 

Page seems to have visited Greece between 1816 and 1824, probably about 1818. A drawing of the 


temple at Bassae by him was engraved in the Supplementary Volume to Stuart and Revett (No. 86), to 
illustrate Donaldson’s article on this temple. 


54. [Grorce Lepwett Taytor.]| Water-color drawing of the Erechtheum from the northwest, 
now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington (PLate LII, 2). 


The drawing is unsigned and was formerly attributed to H. W. Inwood, but, as I am informed by the 
Director, comparison with other drawings of Athens by George L. Taylor shows conclusively that he is the 
artist. See also No. 179. 


55. JosEPH Woops anp R. H. SHarpr. Drawings made in Athens in March, 1818, now in the 
British Museum, MSS., Add. 22,153, fols. 45-69, 153. 


In Add. 22,152, fol. 10 is ‘‘List of drawings made at Athens in 1818. Those marked W are laid down 
by Mr. Woods, those marked S by R. H. Sharpe of York.’’ Most of the drawings of the Erechtheum in this 
list can be identified in the other volume, which also contains a few studies not catalogued separately, and 
probably included in the list under the head of ‘‘minutes.’”’ Woods contributed four drawings, showing the 
masonry at the southwest corner both inside and outside, the inner elevation of the west end of the north 
wall, including two of the church windows, and the inner elevation of the greater part of the south wall. The 
other drawings, attributed to Sharpe or unsigned, are carefully finished studies of architectural details (e.g., 
Fig. 65) chiefly in the North Portico (two at least were finished after Sharpe’s return to York), and some 
rough sketches. Unfortunately, in such matters as the details of the mouldings and the jointing of the 
courses, the drawings are not wholly accurate. See also No. 82. 


1819 
56. JoHN BramsEen. Reise durch die Ionischen Inseln, Aegypten, Syrien, Paldstina und Griechen- 
land. Jena. 
See No. 51. 


57. Epwarp Dopwe.tu. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece during the Years 
1801, 1805, and 1806. 2 vols. London. 


In Athens, 1801, 1805. Erechtheum, 1, pp. 346-357; opposite p. 346, the Erechtheum from the west, 
after a drawing by Pomardi, Dodwell’s artist; p. 356, the southwest corner of the Erechtheum from the 
northwest. See also No. 65. 


58. [Guintaume Martin. ] Voyage a Constantinople, fait d Voccasion de V’ambassade de M. le 
Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier d la Porte ottomane. Par un ancien aumonier de la marine royale. 
Paris. 


In Athens, August, 1784. Erechtheum, pp. 32, 33, very brief and inadequate description. 
A. A. Barbier (Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes’, IV, col. 1056d) attributes this anonymous work to 


Guillaume Martin. 


622 


59. 


60. 


61. 


62. 


63. 


64. 


65. 


66. 


67. 


68. 


69. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


1820 


James DonaLpson. Two drawings of Caryatids in a volume entitled Scrap-book — Greek and 
Roman, in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 


Tuomas LEVERTON DonaLpson. Drawing showing the disposition of the colored glass beads 
in the guilloche of the capitals of the North Portico, in the Library of the Department of 
Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. 

See Ch. I, p. 85, note 4. 


Cuarutes Lock Eastiuake. A Drawing of the Erechtheum. 


See A Catalogue of the beautiful Sketches made by C. L. Eastlake, Esq., R. A., during his Travels in Greece 
and Italy, etc. . . . sold by auction by Messrs. Mason and Christie . . . June the 18th, 1847. 
No. 94. ‘‘Temple of Erecthus, Athens.” 


Conte GIANFRANCESCO GALEANI NAPIONE pI CocconatTo. Monumenti dell ’Architettura 
antica, lettere al Conte Giuseppe Franchi di Pont. Vol. III, Delle Rovine della Grecia. Pisa. 


Erechtheum, pp. 21-28. 

The three letters in this volume are dated October 31, November 5, and November 10, 1802. The author 
does not appear to have visited Greece. The passage cited discusses the Ionic order as shown in the Erech- 
theum. He considers the building to be late, belonging approximately to the time of the Antonines, and its 
style far inferior to the Roman Ionic, as it appears in the temple of “ Fortuna virilis” in Rome. 

The three letters were reprinted by Vincenzo Marcuesse, Raccolta artistica I, Manuale storico dell’ arte 
greca, Firenze, 1846. Erechtheum, pp. 369-374. 


Tuomas Smart Huacuss. Travels in Sicily, Greece, and Albania. 2 vols. London. 


In Athens, 1813. Erechtheum, I, pp. 260, 261; a brief and unimportant notice. A second edition appeared 
in 1830, with a somewhat enlarged account of the Erechtheum based on Leake. See No. 69. 


Cart OTTFRIED MUuuer. Minervae Poliadis Sacra et Aedes in Arce Athenarum. Gottingen. 


The first critical study of the literary and epigraphical evidence. As Miiller had not visited Athens, he 
relied for his knowledge of the actual remains upon Stuart and Revett and other publications. 
Reprinted in C. O. Miillers Kunstarchaeologische Werke, 1, pp. 86-147, Berlin, 1873. 


StmMONE Pomarpi. Viaggio nella Grecia fatto da S. Pomardi negli anni 1804, 1805, e 1806. 
2 vols. Roma. 


Erechtheum, I, pp. 125-127; brief and unimportant description. See No. 57. 
The view of the Erechtheum from the west is a poor copy of the drawing reproduced in Dodwell, Tour, I, 
opposite p. 346. Pomardi accompanied Dodwell as his artist. 


Hueu WituiamM Witiiams. Travels in Italy, Greece, and the Ionian Islands: In a Series of 
Letters, descriptive of Manners, Scenery, and the Fine Arts. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 
In Athens, 1817. Erechtheum, II, pp. 305-3809. 


JouN Lewis Wotre. Diaries and drawings now in the Library of the Royal Institute of 
British Architects. 
In Athens, 1820. See App. A, XVII. 


1821 


Epwarp DopweEtu. Views in Greece. 2 vols. London. 
In Athens, 1801, 1805. ‘South-West View of the Erechtheum” (Puate LII, 1). 


THomas SMart Hucues. Voyage d Janina en Albanie, par la Sicile et la Gréce. Traduit de 
Vanglais .. . par auteur de Londres en 1819 (Auguste-Jean-Baptiste Defauconpret). 2 vols. 
Paris. 

Erechtheum, I, pp. 109, 110. See No. 63. 


70. 


(ok 


72. 


73. 


74, 


75. 


76. 


77. 


78. 


79. 


APPENDIX C 623 


PeTeR Epmunp Laurent. Recollections of a Classical Tour through various parts of Greece, 
Turkey, and Italy, made in the years 1818 and 1819. London. 
Erechtheum, pp. 108, 109. 


This edition was privately printed. A second edition in two volumes was published in 1822. The ac- 
count of the Erechtheum (I, pp. 204-206, 208) is unchanged. 


ae Martin Leake. The Topography of Athens with some Remarks on its Antiquities. 
ondon. 


Erechtheum, Introduction, p. xciii; pp. 257 ff. See No. 118. 


1823 


JosppH THURMER. Ansichten von Athen und seinen Denkmédlern nach der Natur gezeichnet und 
radirt. Vues d’Athénes et de ses Monumens, dessinées et gravées d’aprés Nature. Rome. 


In Athens, 1819. ‘“Oestliche Ansicht der Tempel des Erechtheus, der Minerva’ Polias und der Pandrosus” 
(Piate LIII, 2). The text (in both German and French) is negligible. 


1824 
Henry Witui1am Inwoop. “Ideal of the Erechtheum, etc.” Exhibited at the Royal Academy 
of Arts, 1824, No. 888. 
In Athens, 1819. See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, IV, s.n. See also No. 80. 


J.J. Scores. “Ruins of the Erechtheum at Athens, sketched in oil on the spot in 1824.” 
Exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, 1829, No. 988. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, VII, s. n. 


1825 


Epwarp Buiaquiers. Narrative of a Second Visit to Greece, including Facts connected with the 
Last Days of Lord Byron, Extracts from Correspondence, Official Documents, etc. 2 vols. 
London. 


In Athens, July, 1824. Hrechtheum, I, p. 96 (account of a visit to the temple); II, p. 167 (letter of Gropius). 


RicHARD CHANDLER. Travels in Asia Minor and Greece. ... A new edition with corrections 
and remarks by Nicholas Revett, E'sq. to which is prefixed an introductory account of the author 
by Ralph Churton, M. A. 2 vols. Oxford. 

Erechtheum, II, pp. 67-69, 71, 72. See No. 11. 


Tuomas Litter. “Ruins of the East Portico of the Erechtheum at Athens in 1825.’’ Exhibited 
at the Royal Academy of Arts, 1832, No. 1037. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, V, s. n. 


Hueu Jamss Rose. Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae: collegit et observationes tum aliorum 
tum suas adjecit. Cambridge. 
Erechtheum: pp. 145-179, Prolegomena; 180-208, Text, Latin translation, and Latin notes on the Chan- 
dier Inscription (see Ch. IV, p. 283), with three plates after Wilkins. 
The Prolegomena are in great part a reprint of the work of C. O. Miiller (No. 64), and throughout this 
chapter Rose is largely a compiler, adding little of value to his sources. 


James Stuart AND Nicuoutas Revert. The Antiquities of Athens ... edited by William 
Kinnard, Architect. A new edition. London. 


Erechtheum, II, ch. I, pp. 59-75. See No. 16. Stuart’s text and notes are unaltered, but many new, and 
sometimes important, notes are added. The plates of the Erechtheum are unchanged, but are reduced, and 
occasionally two are combined on a single page. 


624 THE ERECHTHEUM 


1827 


80. Henry Wituram Inwoop. The Erechtheion at Athens: Fragments of Athenian Architecture and 
a few Remains in Attica, Megara, and Epirus. Illustrated with outline Plates and a descriptive, 
historical view combining also under the divisions Cadmeia, Homeros, and Herodotos the Origin 
of Temples and of Grecian Art of the Periods Preceding. London. 

In Athens, 1819. Books XVIII to XXIV, pp. 91-114, treat of the Erechtheum, and contain a discussion 
of its date; notes on the Chandler Inscription and some of its architectural terms, in which Wilkins is fol- 
lowed; an abstract of Pausanias with notes; short notes on other classical passages referring to the Erech- 
theum; an architectural description of the temple and of its proportions; the epistyle and the parts above; 
the doorways and windows. 

Only the last three sections are now of special interest or value. An edition was published in 1831 in 
which all the introductory matter, including the description of the building, was omitted. 


81. Winiram JENKINS. ‘“‘Southwest view of the Triple Temple in the Acropolis of Athens.” 
Exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, 1827, No. 1061. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, IV, s.n. Graves has identically the same entry also under 


J. Jenkins, but it seems probable that the picture was the work of W. Jenkins, Jr., who was in Athens about 
1820, and collaborated in the Supplementary Volume to Stuart and Revett. 


1828 


82. JosepH Woops. Letters of an Architect from France, Italy, and Greece. 2 vols. London. 


In Athens, March, 1818. Hrechtheum, II, pp. 254-258. See No. 55. 
This account of the Erechtheum is noteworthy for its attention to the actual state of the building, espe- 
cially in the interior, and for its generally sensible comments. It is one of the best of the earlier descriptions. 


1829 


83. [JoHn Fuuuer.| Narrative of a Tour through some parts of the Turkish Empire. London. 
In Athens, 1819-1820. Erechtheum, pp. 541, 542; not important. 


84. JAMES STuaART AND Nicuoutas Revetr. Die Alterthtimer von Athen; beschrieben von J. Stuart 
und N. Revett: aus dem Englischen iibersetzt nach der Londoner Ausgabe von Jahren 1762 und 
1787 und bereichert mit einigen eigenen und allen Zusdtzen der neuen Ausgabe vom Jahre 1825. 
Darmstadt. 


The additional German notes add nothing of importance for the Erechtheum. See Nos. 16, 43, 79. 


85. HucH Wituiam Wiuutams. Select Views in Greece with Classical Illustrations. 2 vols. London. 


The plates and pages are unnumbered. Vol I, “‘Temples of Erechtheus and Minerva Polias, the Par- 
thenon appearing in the distance.” An inaccurate view from the north; see Ch. V, p. 554, note 4. ‘‘Temple 
of Pandrosus, dedicated to the nymph Pandrosus, one of the daughters of Cecrops, founder of Athens.”’ 
The Porch of the Maidens from the southwest. 


1830 


86. WiLiiAM JENKINS, JR. In Antiquities of Athens and other Places in Greece, Sicily, etc., supple- 
mentary to the Antiquities of Athens by James Stuart and Nicholas Revett . . . London. 


Jenkins contributed a short note on the entasis of various columns in Athens, including those of the 
Erechtheum; pp. 4, 5; pl. V. See Ch. I, p. 20, note 2. 

This volume formed the fourth of the second edition of Stuart and Revett (No. 79), as the original fourth 
volume was still protected by copyright and could not be reprinted. It was also published in large folio, 
uniform with the four volumes of the original edition. 


87. 


88. 


89. 


90. 


U1, 


92. 


93. 


APPENDIX C 625 


1831 


Jacques-Ienack Hirrorrr. Rapport sur les dessins de Monumens de l’Acropole d’Athénes 
présentés ad la Société libre des beaux-arts par M. Itar, architecte. Paris. 

Also published in Annales de la Société libre des Beaux-Arts, I, 1830-1831, pp. 169-182 (Paris, 
1836). 


There is no special description of the Erechtheum, but a small plate contains an elaborate, though inac- 
curate, restoration of the North Door, and a defective plan. These drawings by Itar seem to have disappeared. 


1831-1835 


Finipro Trosani. Vedute della Grecia incise da F. Trojani sotto la direzione del Cav. Sir William 
Gell in numero trenta. Rome. 


Small, finely engraved copies of the plates in Stuart and Revett, including both views of the Erechtheum. 


1833 


THomas Leverton Donaupson. A Collection of the most approved examples of Doorways from 
Ancient Buildings in Greece and Italy. London. 


In Athens, 1820. Pl. 1, The Doorway in the Porch of the Maidens; pls. XXIII-XXV, The North Door. 
See No. 104. 


PrrerR WILHELM FoRCHHAMMER UND C. O. MiLuer. Zur Topographie Athens. Hin Brief aus 
Athen und ein Brief nach Athen. 
Erechtheum, pp. 15, 16; a description by Forchhammer of the state of the southwest corner before the 
restoration by Pittakis. 
1833-1836 


Epuarp ScuauBert. Drawings and Notes in the Archaeological Museum of the University of 
Breslau. Also in Museum, Blitter fiir bildende Kunst, I, 1833, pp. 233, 261, notes on the 
Erechtheum by Von Quast based on conversations with Schaubert. His drawings were also 
used by Von Quast in his edition of Inwood (No. 116). 

The material in Breslau is in seven portfolios. Drawings of the Erechtheum are collected in II, 178*-182, 
209-238, while a few scattered drawings of coffers and other details are in VI. In V, 311, 312 are brief and 
now unimportant notes, apparently made about the time the interior was cleared. Almost all the drawings 
are careful renderings, often fully figured, of details of the mouldings and decorative carvings, sometimes 
with notes on the use of color. They are more complete in their measurements than the publications of 
Inwood and Von Quast, but contain little of present value. They are not dated, but it seems probable that 
most of them were made about 1833-1836, when Schaubert was associated with Ross in the excavation of 
the Acropolis. See F. Koepp, ‘Eduard Schauberts handschriftlicher Nachlass,’ Arch. Anz., V, 1890, pp. 
129-148. 

1834 


Luiet Canna. L’Architettura antica: Sezione II: L’ Architettura Greca descritta e dimostrata 
cot monument:. Rome. 

Erechtheum: Part II, pp. 73-75, the Chandler Inscription with an Italian translation; Part III, pp. 57-60, 
description with plates (LXXI-LXXVI) derived entirely from the works of Stuart and Revett and of 
Inwood, as Canina had no personal knowledge of the building. 

A second edition contains the Chandler Inscription in Vol. V (1837), pp. 305-313; the description in Vol. 

VI (1841), pp. 163-173. 

AnTON PRokEScH VON OsTEeN. Julius Schnellers hinterlassene Werke .. . herausgegeben von 
Ernst Miinch. Vol. Il, Briefwechsel zwischen Julius Schneller und seinem Pflegsohne Prokesch. 
Stuttgart. 

Erechtheum, pp. 305-309, letter xx1x, dated August 21, 1827, a description of the building after the 


Turkish bombardment. The letter contains some details about the collapse of the North Portico which are 
lacking in the later publication (No. 107). A second edition appeared in 1840. 


626 


94. 


95. 


96. 


97. 


98. 


oo: 


100. 


101. 


102. 


103. 


104. 


106. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


1835 


Wiui1am Coin. Select Views of the Remains of Ancient Monuments in Greece as at present 
existing, from Drawings Taken and Coloured on the Spot in the Year 1833. London. 
Pl. VIII, ‘‘The Temples of Erectheus, Minerva Polias, and Pandrosos.”’ See Ch. V, p. 559; PLate LIII, 3. 


Kyrtakos Prrraxis (Prrraxys). L’ancienne Athénes, ou la description des antiquités d’ Athénes 
et de ses environs. Athens. 

Erechtheum, pp. 391-409; of very little value. 

Lupwic Ross. Kunstblatt (Supplement to Morgenblatt fiir gebildete Stande), 1835, No. 78, p. 321. 
Letter dated July 18, 1835, announcing the discovery of the passage from the crypt under the North Portico; 
see Ch. V, p. 560; also No. 159. 

Wituiam WILKxins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Literature, I, 6, pp. 55-58. 


A summary of a paper by Wilkins, read by Hamilton, discussing the Chandler Inscription. It appears 
to have been an earlier form of the work published two years later in Prolusiones Architectonicae (No. 110). 


1836 


Francis ARUNDALE. “The Pandroseum.” Exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, 1836, 
No. 976. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, I, s.n.; also No. 146. 


Epwarp Norton Cuirton. ‘View of the Erechtheum on the Acropolis of Athens, etc.” 
Exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, 1836, No. 1058. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, I, s. n. 


H. Herrmann. ‘Bemerkungen tiber die antiken Dekorations-Malereien an den Tempeln zu 
Athen,’ Allgemeine Bauzeitung, 1836, pp. 86 ff. Vienna. 
In Athens, 1835. For the text relating to the Erechtheum see Ch. II, note C, IJ, p. 228. 


Lupwic Ross. Kunstblatt, 1836, Nos. 39, 40, 60, 76, 84; pp. 165-167, 170-172, 249, 250, 
314, 347. 

Letters dated January 28, May 7, June 5, July 6, 1836, reporting the discovery of numeious fragments 
of the accounts of 408/7 B.c., and in the last letter (p. 347) the recovery, in the ruins of a Turkish hut, 
of the throne of the priest of Butes (Ch. V, p. 484, Fig. 206). See also No. 159. 

CHRISTOPHER WorpDswortuH. Athens and Attica: Journal of a Residence there. London. 


In Athens, 1832. Hrechtheum, pp. 131-138. A second edition, unaltered so far as the notice of the 
Erechtheum is concerned, appeared in 1837. See No. 161. 


1837 


C. H. Bracesrince. Patterns and Colors from the Erechtheum, 1837. Manuscript letter, dated 
April 17, 1837, in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 
See Ch. II, note C, II, p. 229. 


Tuomas LEvERTON Donaupson. Collection des exemples les plus estimés des portes monumen- 
tales de la Gréce et de l’Italie. Paris. 


French translation of the work which appeared in 1833 (see No. 89). 


. PETER WiItHELM ForcuuamMeEr. Hellenica I, Griechenland, im Neuen das Alte. Berlin. 


In Athens, 1832-1833. Hrechiheum: pp. 31-41, description and interpretation of the Erechtheum in 
accordance with the author’s theory of Greek religion; p. 363, restored plan and explanation. 


Epwarp Girrarp. A Short Visit to the Ionian Islands, Athens, and the Morea. London. 
In Athens, February 4-7, 1836. Erechtheum, pp. 153-162. 


APPENDIX C 627 


107. ANTON PRoKEScCH von OsTEN. Denkwiirdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem Orient vom Ritter 
Prokesch von Osten. Aus Julius Schnellers Nachlass herausgegeben von Dr. Ernst Miinch. 
3 vols. Stuttgart. 


Vol. II, pp. 409-413, 639, 646 f., the Erechtheum in 1825; vol. III, pp. 509 f., the Erechtheum in 1827, 
after the Turkish bombardment. See No. 93. 
108. ALEXANDER Rizo RANGAB. 'E¢nuepls "Apxaodoyixn, I, pp. 12, 13. 
A brief account of the beginning of the restoration of the Erechtheum after the Greek Revolution 
(Ch. V, p. 561). 
109. Lupwie Ross. Kunstblatt, 1837, No. 79, pp. 325, 326. 


Letter describing the discovery of the sixth Caryatid (Ch. V, p. 565) and excavations along the north 
side of the Erechtheum. See No. 159. 
110. Wituiam Witkins. Prolusiones Architectonicae: or Essays on Subjects connected with Grecian 
and Roman Architecture. London. 
Pp. 1-38, “The Building and its Restoration”; 39-82, ‘The Athenian Inscription”; 83-96, “On the 
Construction of the Roofs of Temples.” The 14 finely engraved plates are all restorations. See No. 97. 
While correcting some inaccuracies in detail, Wilkins retained his interpretation of the technical terms 
in the Chandler Inscription in the face of the criticism of Boeckh and C. O. Miiller. Characteristic is his 
defence of his translation of rAivdo. as simae; ‘The meaning of the term in the inscription is so obvious, that 
I considered all authority in support of it superfluous” (p. 43). 


1838 
111. Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg), July 16, 1838, Beilage, pp. 1495, 1496. 


A severely critical summary of an article in the Athenian Zwrip (date not given), describing the recent 
clearing and restoration of the Erechtheum. 
112. Wiii1am James Miuuer. “Several studies of the Caryatides”’ and other sketches. 


See N. N. Solly, Memoirs of the Life of W. J. Miiller (London, 1875), p. 61, Miiler’s stay in Athens; pp. 
335 ff., Nos. 24, 50, 118 in a list of 453 paintings and sketches sold, April, 1846, after Miiller’s death. 


1838-1841 


113. JAMES SKENE (of Rubislaw). Four drawings (Figs. 224-227). 


James Skene (1775-1864) of Rubislaw, near Aberdeen, lived in Athens from 1838 to 1844, and during 
that time is said to have made upwards of five hundred water-color diawings of the monuments and scenery 
of Greece. Many pen-and-ink sketches were also included in his Journal for the year 1838. On his life and 
work, see W. F. Skene, Memorials of the Family of Skene of Skene, pp. 139, 140; Dictionary of National Bio- 
graphy, s.n. The drawings of the Erechtheum have been reproduced by the kind permission of the owners, 
his grandson, Felix Skene of Send, Woking, and his great-grandson Maurice Skene-Tytler of Keith Marischal. 


1839 


114. Everene Fuanpin. Belgique, France, Gréce, 1839. A volume of original drawings in the De- 
partment of Prints, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, London. 
Fol. 64, Parthenon and Erechtheum. ‘(15 Nov. 1839. Eug. Flandin. No. 19.” (Puate LIV, 1.) 


1840 


115. Vuapmmir Davypov. Ilyressra SanucKn, BeseHHbIA BO BpeMA UpeOsrBania Ha lonmueckuxs 
ocrposax'b, BS I'peniu, Mano Asiu u Typuin Bs 1835 rony. (Putevyia Zapiski, vedennyia 
vo. vremia prebyvaniia na Ionicheskikh ostrovakh, v Gretsii, Malot Azii 1 Turtsit v 1835 godu.) 
3 vols. St. Petersburg. 


Erechtheum, I, p. 226; II, Atlas, pl. 19. The Erechtheum from the southeast after a drawing by J. J. 
Wolfensberger. It shows the building in much the same state as Cole’s drawing (PLatr LIII, 3). 


628 THE ERECHTHEUM 
116. ALEXANDER FERDINAND von Quast. Das Erechtheion zu Athen ... Nach dem Werke des H. W. 
Inwood mit Verbesserungen und vielen Zusdtzen herausgegeben, durch eine genaue Beschreibung 
dieses Tempels und eine vollstindige Geschichte der Baukunst in Athen vermehrt. Text and 
Atlas. Berlin. 
The plates are taken from Inwood (No. 80), with numerous additions and corrections from drawings by 
Schaubert. The text includes a translation of Inwood’s description of his plates, but is otherwise the work 
of Von Quast. 


1840-1846 


117. Résumé des actes de la société archéologique d’Athénes. Deuxiéme édition. Zivoyrs r&v Ipaxtixdv 
ris apxaodroyecfs érarplas Tov ’AOnvav. "Exdoows devrépa. Athens (dated 1846 but published in 
1847). 


This edition contains the annual reports for the first eleven years, in both Greek and French. Hrechtheum: 
1840, pp. 84, 85, the repairs on the walls and the clearing of the interior are said to be finished; 1843, pp. 
186, 187, project for clearing the North Portico; 1845, pp. 198-201, account of the clearing of the North 
Portico; 1846, pp. 222, 223, 228-231, the completion of the work in the North Portico, the restoration of the 
sixth Caryatid, and plans for setting in place the cast from England and for other work in the Porch of the 
Maidens, to be carried out with the help of the French Minister, Piscatory; 1847, pp. 312-317, completion 
of the work in the Porch of the Maidens and a brief notice of the excavations of Tétaz. 


1841 


118. Wittram Martin Leake. The Topography of Athens and the Demi of Attica. Second edition. 

2 vols. London. 

Erechtheum, I, pp. 338-345, 574-592 (including the text of the Chandler Inscription), 626-627 (note 
dated 1839). See No. 71. 

This edition was later reprinted, with no change in the title-page or text but with a new set of plates. 
The Erechtheum appears only on pl. III, the plan of the Acropolis. In the original impression this is marked 
“Published for the Author by J. Rodwell, New Bond Street, May, 1841.” In later copies it is inscribed 
‘Published for the Author by John Murray, Albemarle St., London, 1854,” and bears the legend “‘ Plan of 
the Acropolis of Athens showing the extent of recent excavations, and the levels and relative bearings of 
the principal Monuments: with the additions and corrections of Mr. F. C. Penrose in 1847.” 


119. Prosper Marinuat. The Erechtheum from the west: a painting (No. 334) in the Wallace 
Collection, Hertford House, London. 


Marilhat, a French artist, was in the Levant between 1831 and 1833, although this painting was not exe- 
cuted until 1841. The view is reversed, having the North Portico on the spectator’s right and the Porch 
of the Maidens on the left, while both the building and its surroundings are very freely treated in other 
respects. It is, therefore, of little value as a witness to the condition of the building. 


1842 


120. E. Garston. Greece Revisited in 1840. London. 
Erechtheum, pp. 125, 126, 131. Unimportant. 


121. ALEXANDER Rizo Raneash. Antiquités helléniques. I. Athens. 


Erechtheum, pp. 9, 45-86; pls. IV, V. 

The text is chiefly given up to the publication and discussion of the Accounts of 408-7 B.c. (Ch. IV, 
Inscriptions XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, XXIII), but also includes a brief notice of the fragments of the frieze, 
and of the original arrangement of the interior. The plates contain the fragments of the frieze (Ch. III, pp. 
241, 276), a restored plan of the Erechtheum, and a very poor view of the building from the southeast. 


122. Gr. M. Santzo. Two lithographs: (1) “Portique du Temple d’Erecthée,” from the south; 
(2) “Temple d’ Erecthée 4 Athénes,”’ the west end from north of west. 


I owe my knowledge of these lithographs to Mr. A. M. Woodward, Director of the British School at 
Athens, who kindly showed me the copies in the British School. 


123. 


124. 


125. 


126. 


127. 


128. 


129, 


130. 


131. 


APPENDIX C 629 


PAULINA JERMYN TREVELYAN. The Erechtheum from the southwest, drawn by Lady Trevel- 
yan, July 17, 1842; now in the Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum; see 
Catalogue of Drawings by British Artists, IV, s.n., No. 33. 


This water-color is rather sketchy and not accurate in details. In the Porch of the Maidens the copy of 
the Elgin statue is in place and all the supports of rough masonry removed on the south and west sides, but 
the architrave has not been replaced over the second figure from the east, which stands free. As it is certain that 
the Porch was not repaired until 1846 (see Ch. V, p. 567), the artist has here indulged in a little restoration. 


1843 


PETER WILHELM ForcHHAMMER. ‘Ueber einige der altesten Bauten, Tullianum, Carcer Ma- 
mertinus, Gefiingnis des Socrates, Ohr des Dionysios, Grab des Kekrops, des Erechtheus, 
ete.,’ Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg), No. 256, September 13, 1848, Beilage. 

An argument to show that the excavations since 1833 have fully confirmed the views expressed in Hellenica, 
I (No. 105), as to the arrangement and significance of the different parts of the Erechtheum. 

C. Mines. ‘View of the Erechtheum, etc.’ Exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, 

1843, No. 1258. 


See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, V, s.n. 


ADOLF ScH6LL. Archaeologische Mittheilungen aus Griechenland nach Carl Ottfried Muillers 
hinterlassenen Papieren. Frankfort. 


P. 20, brief notice of the discovery in 1837 of the fragments of the frieze and of the sixth Caryatid ; 
pp. 125, 129-131, remarks on the sculptors and the style of the frieze. 


1844 


THroporE Bau. “Restauration du Temple de Minerve Poliade 4 Athénes faite en 1844 
par M. Ballu, Architecte Pensionnaire de |’Académie de France 4 Rome.” 


Six large drawings in the Bibliothéque de I’Kcole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. These drawings are not now of 
great importance, being superseded by the more careful and accurate studies of Tétaz; see No. 132. 


1845 


THEODOSE-ACHILLE-LOUIs, ComTE pu Moncen. Vues pittoresques des monuments d’Athénes. 
Paris. 

In Athens, 1843. Pl. III, the Erechtheum from the southwest. 

It closely resembles the drawing by Hansen (Fig. 228), but is not quite so careful in its rendering of de- 
tails. The same view appears as pl. XI in the author’s De Venise d Constantinople a travers la Gréce et retour 
par Malte, Messine, Pizzo et Naples. 

CarL Poppe. Sammlung von Ornamenten und Fragmenten antiker Architektur, Sculptur, Mosatk 
und Toreutik auf einer Reise durch Griechenland, Italien und Sicilien aufgenommen. Berlin. 


The plates include a view of the Erechtheum from the southwest. It is not of much importance, as it 
seems made rather with a view to a striking effect than to accuracy of representation. On Poppe see Ross, 


Arch. Aufs., I, p. 73. 
ALEXANDER Rizo RanGass. ‘Lettre 4 M. de Saulcy,’ R. Arch., II, 1, 1845, pp. 321-324. 


A notice of the removal of the Turkish vault in the North Portico and of the discovery of some fragments 
of the frieze (see Ch. III, p. 240). An accompanying plate contains an inaccurate restoration of the North 


Door. 

Harry Raueu Ricarpo. “Drawings made on the spot by H. R. R. (1823-1860), for some 
time (1845-1850) an Associate R.I.B.A. Presented to the Museum, Jan. 19, 1908, by Halsey 
Ralph Ricardo.” In the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. 


Fol. 12, the Erechtheum from the northeast (PLatE LIV, 3), dated December, 1845; fols. 13-17, carefully 
executed architectural drawings of details in the Porch of the Maidens, the North Portico, and the West 


Facade. 


630 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


1848 


132. Jacquns-Martin Thtaz. ‘Académie des Beaux-Arts de l'Institut de France. Section d’Arch- 


133. 


134. 


135. 


136. 


137. 


138. 


139. 


itecture. Restauration du Temple d’Erechthée 4 Athénes exécutée par M. Tétaz en 1848”; 
also his manuscript Mémoire explicatif. In the Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 
Paris. 


Seventeen carefully executed drawings from studies made in Athens in 1847-1848, though some of the 
restorations were finished in Rome in 1849. They include a plan, north, south, east, and west elevations, 
and a section looking south; all show the present state of the building and also restorations (the restored 
south elevation is missing). The last five sheets are devoted to very finely executed renderings of architectural 
details. The whole series is of great importance for the condition of the building in 1848, though the restora- 
tion is now known to be erroneous. See Nos. 143, 222, 263. 


1849 


Cart BortticHEer. ‘Neueste Forschungen tiber das Erechtheion,’ Arch. Zig., VII, 1849, 
pp. 120*ff. 


A sharp criticism of the theories of Thiersch (No. 135), read before the Berlin Archaeologische Gesellschaft, 
December 9, 1849. See also No. 140, which is an enlarged version of this paper. 


ANTOINE-MARIE CHENAVARD. Voyage en Gréce et dans le Levant fait en 1848-1844 par A. M. 
Chenavard, architecte, EH. Rey, peintre, professeurs ad Vécole des Beaux-Arts de Lyon, et J. M. 
Dalgabio, architecte. Relation par A. M. Chenavard. Second edition. Lyons. 


Page 23 contains a brief and unimportant notice of the Erechtheum. The first edition (1846) omits even 
this notice. Neither of these editions contains any illustrations. See No. 169. 


FRIEDRICH THIERSCH. ‘Ueber das Erechtheum auf der Akropolis zu Athen. I, Ueber die innere 
Einrichtung, Mannigfaltigkeit und Absicht des Baues,’ Abh. Miinch. Akad., V, 2, pp. 
81-185; 5 pls. 

Read August 5, 1848. Pp. 173-183 contain answers by A. R. Rangabé (dated Dec. 13/25, 1848) to 
questions by Thiersch about the actual state of the building and the latter’s comments. See No. 1388. 


1850 
Lupwie Ross. ‘Brunnen im Erechtheion,’ Arch. Ztg., VIII, 1850, pp. 178f. 


A suggestion that the “sea”? had been replaced by the great cistern and that search for it was useless. 
Reprinted in Arch. Aufs., II, p. 280. 


Lupwiae Ross. ‘Griechenland und Morgenland,’ Z. Alterthumswissenschaft, VIII, 1850, cols. 
206-208. 


An argument to show that the cults connected with the Erechtheum were of Egyptian origin. Reprinted 

in Arch. Aufs., II, pp. 44-46. 
FRrrepRicH Tuirrscu. ‘Ueber das Erechtheum auf der Burg von Athen. II. Ueber den Bau- 
style und die historische Entwickelung desselben,’ Abh. Miinch. Akad., VI, 1, pp. 101-250. 


Read August 5, 1843, but completely revised before publication. It is a discussion of the origins of Greek 
architectural forms, with little reference to the Erechtheum, but pp. 230-249 contain a very sharp reply to 
the criticisms of Boetticher (No. 133). See No. 135. 


1850-1851 


Disiré-Raovut Rocuerre. ‘Ueber das Erechtheum auf der Akropolis, von Athen, Ise und 
IIe Abhandlungen von Fr. Thiersch,’ Journal des Savants, 1850, pp. 654-666 (plan after 
Thiersch), 751-764; 1851, pp. 27-46 (plan after Tétaz), 79-97. 


A detailed examination of the publications of Thiersch (Nos. 135, 138), whose conclusions he is disposed 
to view with favor, and, in the later numbers, of Tétaz (No. 143). 


Sy eS RAN ete. ee 


140. 


141. 


142. 


143. 


144. 


145. 


146. 


147. 


148 


APPENDIX C 631 


1851 


Cart Borrricner. Der Polias-Tempel als Wohnhaus des Kénigs Erechtheus, nach der Annahme 
von Fr. Thiersch. Beleuchtet und seinen Freunden in der archdologischen Gesellschaft zugeeignet. 
Berlin. 

A violent and destructive criticism of the theories of Thiersch (No. 135), but contributing little of value 


for the understanding of the building itself. In it the view that the Pandroseum lay west of the Erechtheum 
was first presented, although Bétticher maintained that the cella of Pandrosus was within the Erechtheum. 


PeTER WILHELM ForcHHAmMeEr. ‘Athen — Altes im Neuen. Die religidsen Heiligthiimer im 
Erechtheion. Thiersch, Raoul-Rochette,’ Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg), Nos. 211, 212, 
July 30, 31, 1851, Beilage. 


A defence of his earlier theories and a criticism of Thiersch and of Raoul-Rochette. See No. 144. 


JacquEs-Ianace Hirrorrr. Restitution du Temple d’Empedocle a Selinunte ou Varchitecture 
polychrome chez les Grecs. Paris. 


The use of color in the Erechtheum is treated on the basis of the report of the committee appointed by 
the Institute of British Architects (see Ch. II, Note C, II, pp. 228 f.). The Atlas, pl. XI, 1-3, contains 
colored restorations of details in the Erechtheum. 


Jacques-Martin Titaz. ‘Mémoire explicatif et justificatif de la restauration de 1’ Erech- 
théion d’Athénes,’ R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pp. 1-12, 81-96; pls. 158, 159. 


An enlargement of the manuscript Mémoire explicatif, which accompanied his original drawings; see 
No. 1382. 

A free translation, signed ‘‘Stauffert, ehem. Stadtarchitekt von Athen,” with additional drawings of 
details by Hoffer, a restored plan and section and a good drawing of a fragment from the frieze (p. 250, 
No. 18) by Theophilos Hansen, and a view from the southwest by Christian Hansen (Fig. 228) was published 
in the Allgemeine Bauzeitung (Vienna), XVI, 1851, pp. 335-353, pls. 429-435. 


FriepRicu Turerscu. Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg), No. 219, August 7, 1851, Beilage. 
A reply to the criticism of Forchhammer (No, 141). 


Friepricu Tuierscu. Vorerinnerung in Architektonische Zeichnungen, als Beilage zu den zwei 
Abhandlungen ueber das Erechtheum . . . von Eduard Mezger. 


Pp. 154-158 of the separate publication of Thiersch’s second article on the Erechtheum (No. 138), with 
5 plates by Mezger (or Metzger). The brief text contains comments on the publications of Raoul Rochette 
(No. 139), Bétticher (No. 140), and Forchhammer (No. 141). The plates include a fanciful restoration of the 
Porch of the Maidens and a number of architectural details. 


1852 


Francis ARUNDALE. “Ruins of the Temple of Erectheus, Athens.” Exhibited at the Royal 
Academy of Arts, London, 1852, No. 611. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, I, s.n.; also No. 98. 


Jean-Lovuis-CHARLES GARNIER. An extremely delicate and careful drawing of the Erech- 
theum from the southwest before the great storm of 1852, in Vol. I of the Collection Charles 
Garnier, in the Bibliothéque de |’Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. 


The same volume contains a few small and unimportant sketches of architectural details. 


B. K. Heiter. Archdologisch-artistische Mittheilungen tiber die Ausgrabungen auf der Akropolis 
zu Athen, 1835, 1836, und 1837. Nuremberg. 


Erechtheum, p. 2. 
Heller was artist for Ross during the excavations, but his report is wholly unimportant. 


632 


149. 


150. 


151. 


152. 


153. 


154. 


155. 


156. 


PE 


158. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


1853 


HERMANN JuLIus THEODOR Hertrner. Griechische Reiseskizzen. Brunswick. 


In Athens, 1852. EHrechtheum, pp. 123-144, with plan. See No. 155. 
His chapter is in great part occupied with a presentation of his own theories of the original arrangement 
of the building and of its artistic merits. He says very little about its actual condition. 


lpaxruxa ths emt Tod ’"Epexetou éritporijs, 7} avaypady THs adnOovs KatacTacews Tov ’EpexOelov yevo- 
pevn Kat’ evToN}v Tod ’ApxatodoytKod LuANOyou kal exdobetca daravy THs “Apxavoroyuchs ‘Eracpias. 
Athens. 

The report of the Greek Commission of 1852, presented to the Archaeological Society on October 4/16, 
1853. Owing to delays in preparing the plates the report, although dated in 1853, was not actually pub- 
lished until 1855; see Thiersch, E'pikrisis (No. 166), pp. 357, 358. 

Frirpricu Turerscu. ‘Ueber die neuesten Untersuchungen des Erechtheums auf der Akropo- 
lis zu Athen. Ein Sendschreiben an Herrn Geheimrath August Boeckh,’ Gelehrte Anzeigen 
herausgegeben von Mitgliedern der Kéniglichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
XXXVI, 1853, pp. 268-285. 

Also published separately. It contains a brief statement of the results of the work of the Greek Com- 
mission as interpreted, not always correctly, by Thiersch. See No. 166. 
A. voN VEuLsEN. ‘Athenische Ausgrabungen,’ Arch. Ztg., XI, 1853, p. 360*. 


A note, dated July 15, 1853, on the progress of Thiersch’s excavation of the Erechtheum, i.e., the work 
of the Greek Commission. It contains the statement that borings showed the marks in the crypt of the 
North Portico to be at least 3m. deep. 


1854 


CHARLES-ERNEST Brut. L’Acropole d’Athénes. 2 vols. Paris. 
Erechtheum, II, pp. 216-294, with plate reproducing the restoration of Tétaz (see No. 148). 


Cari BorrticHer. Arch. Ztg., XII, 1854, p. 473*. 
A summary of a paper read before the Berlin Archaeologische Gesellschaft, July 4, 1854, containing 
a criticism of Tétaz’s restoration as published by Beulé; the original publication is not mentioned. 
HERMANN JuLius THEopoR Hertnmr. Athens and the Peloponnese with Sketches of Northern 
Greece (Constable’s Miscellany of Foreign Literature, II). Edinburgh. 
Erechtheum, pp. 93-108. See No. 149. 


1855 


CarL Borrticusr. Arch. Ztg., XIII, 1855, pp. 101*-103*. 


A summary of a paper read before the Berlin Archaeologische Gesellschaft, December 9, 1855, on the 
royal graves on the Acropolis. He argued that the grave of Erichthonius was in the Porch of the Maidens 
and the grave of Cecrops outside of the Erechtheum. 


JoHNn Cam Hosuovuse, Lorp Broveuton. Travels in Albania and other Provinces of Turkey in 
1809 and 1810. A new edition. 2 vols. London. 

Erechtheum: I, pp. 297-299; 301, rather carelessly executed views of the Erechtheum from the east and 
from the west; II, pp. 448, 449, a note on the restoration of the Erechtheum after 1837, following informa- 
tion given by Pittakis. See No. 40. 

The text of the first edition remained unaltered in the passage relating to the Erechtheum, but additional 
notes refer to Leake, Wilkins, Dodwell, Wordsworth, and Hettner. 


CHRISTIAN PrTerseNn; Cart Bourticuer. ‘Zur Kenntniss des Erechtheion,’ Arch. Ztg., XII, 
1855, cols. 65-78, with a plan by Boetticher to show Petersen’s reconstruction. 


An open letter from Petersen to Boetticher, proposing a new (and wholly untenable) restoration and in- 
terpretation of the building, and Boetticher’s destructive reply. 


159. 


160. 


161. 


162. 


163. 


164. 


165. 


166. 


167. 


168. 


169. 


APPENDIX C 633 


Lupwie Ross. Archdologische Aufsétze, I, pp. 98, 99, 112, 121-125. Halle. 
References to discoveries in the Erechtheum during the work on the Acropolis, reprinted, with omissions 
and corrections, from the letters in the Kunstblatt, Nos. 96, 101, 109. 
GoOTTFRIED Semper. ‘Briefe aus der Schweiz. Die neben den Propyli&en gefundenen Inschrift- 
tafeln,’ Deutsches Kunstblatt, VI, 1855, pp. 332, 333, 370, 371, 377-381, 388-390, 397, 398, 
404—407. 


A plate contains restored plans of the Acropolis and of the Propylaea, the latter showing the construction 
of the ceiling, and a section of the Erechtheum, looking north, to show Semper’s restoration. 

The first letter is dated Ziirich, August 30, 1855; the others were all written in London in December, 
1852. The letters contain a curious attempt to prove that these inscriptions (fragments of the Accounts of 
408/7 B.c.) refer to the Propylaea and not to the Erechtheum. See No. 200. 

CHRISTOPHER Worpsworts. Athens and Attica: Notes of a Tour. Third edition, revised. 

London. 

Erechtheum, pp. 110-117. 

The account is fuller than that in the first edition, and there is a restoration by G. Scharf, Jr. See No. 102. 


JoHNn Dayton Wyarrt. “The Erechtheum on the Acropolis at Athens, etc.’”’ Exhibited at the 
Royal Academy of Arts, 1855, No. 1179. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, VIII, s. n. 


1856 


Paut-Rent-Lton Grnarn. Eight very fine tracings, including a plan (present state), section, 
elevation, and details, in the Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. 

CHRISTIAN PETERSEN. ‘Das Erechtheum,’ Z. Alterthumswissenschaft, XIV, 1856, cols. 236-240, 
with plan. 

A correction and explanation of his restored plan of the Erechtheum which had not been correctly ren- 

dered by Boetticher in Arch. Zig., XIII (No. 158). 

CHRISTIAN PeTERSEN. ‘Das Erechtheion und die Quellen der Akropolis,’ Arch. Ztg., XIV, 
1856, cols. 193 ff. 

1857 


Frreprich Turerscu. ‘Epikrisis der neuesten Untersuchungen des Erechtheums auf der 
Akropolis zu Athen,’ Abh. Miinch. Akad., VIII, 2, pp. 335-425; 7 plates. 

Pp. 359-364 contain extracts from the ‘“‘Sendschreiben an A. Boeck” (No. 151); pp. 364-377, the German 
translation by Conrad Bursian of the Report of the Greek Commission (No. 150), with six plates. The rest 
of the paper is a polemical discussion of the views of Boetticher, Tétaz, and Beulé, with a defence of his own 
theories, somewhat modified in detail but essentially unchanged. 


FrippricH Tuirrscu. ‘Ueber das oiknua bei Pausanias. Eine Beilage zur Epikrisis der neu- 
esten Untersuchungen des Erechtheums,’ zbid., pp. 429-456. 


1858 


Cart BortticuEer. ‘Das Prostomiaion und die Parastas der Bauinschrift am Tempel der 
Athena Polias,’ Arch. Ztg., XVI, 1858, cols. 117-128. 
A discussion, directed against the views of Thiersch, of the passage in the Chandler Inscription (Chap. IV, 
Inscription II, col. 1, ll. 69-74). As he read érés in line 69 he placed both Prostomiaion and Parastas 
outside the temple and connected them with the small doorway in the North Portico. 


ANTOINE-MARIE CHENAVARD. Voyage en Gréce et dans le Levant fait en 1843 et 1544, etc. 
Lyons. 
Erechtheum: pl. XVI, the Erechtheum from the south; pl. XVII, the Erechtheum from the east; pl. 


XVIII, details of the North Door (by E. Rey). 
The drawings were made in 1848, and give an excellent idea of the condition of the building at that time, 


though they do not seem always accurate in detail, See No. 134. 


634 


170. 


Vil, 


172. 


173. 


174. 


175. 


176. 


17%, 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


1859 


Cart BorrricuEer. ‘Ueber die letzte bauliche Untersuchung des Erechtheion auf der Akropo- 
lis von Athen,’ Z. Bawwesen, IX, 1859, cols. 203-210, 317-336; pls. K-N. 


The first article is dated August, 1858. The two articles are a detailed analysis of the Report of the Greek 
Commission of 1852 (No. 150), in order to show that its statements are destructive of the theories of Thiersch, 
but fully confirm his own views. The plates are taken from the Report of the Commission. 


Perer WitHEeLM ForcuHaAmMMER. ‘Das Erechtheion,’ Jahrbticher fiir classische Philologie, 
LX XIX, 1859, pp. 186-189. 
Reiteration of his previous views, slightly modified, with special reference to the publications of Thiersch, 
Tétaz, and Beulé. 
1860 
Orro Jaun. Pausaniae descriptio arcis Athenarum in usum scholarum edidit. Accedit forma 
arcis ab Adolfo Michaelis descripta. Bonn. 
The article by Michaelis (No. 173) was written to accompany the plans in this volume. See Nos. 194, 
228. 
1861 
Avoutr Micwartis. ‘Der jetzige Zustand der Akropolis,’ Rh. Mus., XVI, 1861, pp. 210-235; 


also separately. 


Erechtheum, pp. 231-233 (pp. 24-26 of reprint). 
Very brief notice. The article is a commentary on the plan of the Acropolis by Michaelis in the first 


edition of Jahn’s Pausanias (No. 172). 
1862 


ERNEST Breton. Athénes décrite et dessinée. Paris. 


Erechtheum, pp. 147, 153-175. 
His description and interpretation are based on Tétaz (No. 143) and Beulé (No. 153), with some slight 
modification in details. A second edition, apparently unchanged, was published in 1868. 


1863 
CarL BoxrrticHer. Bericht tiber die Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis von Athen im Friihjahre, 
1862. Berlin. Also published in Z. Bawwesen, XIII, 1863, cols. 195-224, 405-407, 557-608; 
pls. N-N,,. 
Erechtheum, pp. 20-22 (cols. 208, 209), 32-35 (cols. 215-217), 43-44 (col. 222), 48-49 (col. 407), 190-217 
(cols. 580-597); figs. 39-43 (pl. Nis). 


On this expedition and its results see Ch. V, pp. 570 ff. 
1866 


RicHarD PHENE Spiers. ‘The Erechtheum from the northeast’ (water-color), and “The 
Erechtheum from the southwest” (drawing), in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South 
Kensington, London. 


See No. 183. 
1867 
ETIENNE Rey. Voyage pittoresque en Gréce et dans le Levant fait en 1843-44. .. . Par E. Rey, 
peintre, et A. Chenavard, architecte . . . et Dalbagio, architecte. Journal de Voyage, dessins et 


planches lithographiées par Etienne Rey. Lyons. 

Pl. XXIV, the Erechtheum from the north peristyle of the Parthenon; pl. XXV, the North Portico 
(PLatE LIV, 2); both plates are dated “19 Oct. 1843.” 

The text is of no independent value, being avowedly derived from Beulé (No. 153) and the Guide d’Orient 
of Joanne and Isambert. 


a 


hg - 
Oe a a ee ee 


he wD ee YO. 


178. 


179. 


180. 


181. 


182. 


183. 


184. 


185. 


186. 


187. 


APPENDIX C 635 


1868 
Avueust Momsen. Athenae Christianae. Leipzig. 
The Erechtheum as a church, p. 40, No. 37. 


Grorck LepwELL Taytor. Auto-Biography of an Octogenarian Architect. 2 vols. London. 


Erechtheum, I, p. 126, dimensions of the order of the North Portico, as measured in 1818, and a few 
unimportant notes. See No. 54. 


1871 


GIUSEPPE CASTELLAzzI. Ricordi di archittetura orientale, presi dal vero. Venice. 


In Athens, 1865. Hrechtheum: pl. XII, ‘‘Rovine del Eretteo”’; pl. XIV, “ Dettagli dello stesso’”’ (both 
of these plates are views of the Porch of the Maidens); pl. XXVIII, ‘Porta a Nord dell’ Eretteo.” 
The plates are somewhat coarse lithographs. The brief descriptive text contains little of importance. 


JosEF Duro. ‘Aus Attika,’ Z. Bauwesen, XXI, 1871, cols. 469-490. 
Erechtheum, cols. 482, 484, 486, 487; figs. 11-13, 19, 20, 24-27. Only brief notes on details in construction. 


1873 


Tuomas Henry Dysr. Ancient Athens: its History, Topography, and Remains. London. 


Erechtheum, pp. 138-145, the date of the Erechtheum; 414-436, description of the building and inter- 
pretation of Pausanias. 


RicHarD Puené Spiers. ‘North Portico of the Erechtheum, Athens.’ Exhibited at the 
Royal Academy of Arts, 1873, No. 1196. 
See A. Graves, The Royal Academy of Arts, VII, s.n.; also No. 176. 


1875 


Peter WILHELM ForcHHAMMER. Daduchos. Einleitung in das Verstdindniss der hellenischen 
Mythen, Mythensprache, und mythischen Bauten. Kiel. 


Pp. 1 ff., brief explanation of the myth of Erechtheus according to his old theory that the characters are 
all divinities of moisture in some form; 129-138, application of these mythical theories to the restoration 
of the Erechtheum. The plan differs in many respects from that first published in Hellenica, I (No. 105), 
but the underlying principles of interpretation are the same. 


1876 


JAMES FrrGcusson. ‘On the Erechtheum,’ Sessional Papers R. I. B. A., 1875-1876, pp. 1389- 
158, and Supplement, pp. 1-10; 3 pls. 


The text of the paper, read at a meeting of the Institute, February 14, 1876, is followed by a report of 
the ensuing discussion, and completed by a supplement containing critical letters from P. W. Forchhammer 
and Louis Bernier with Fergusson’s reply. The first plate is an enlarged reproduction of the ‘‘present state”’ 
of the building as drawn by Tétaz (R. Arch., VIII, 1851, pl. 158); the other two plates contain Fergusson’s 
restorations. See also Nos. 191, 193. 


Perer Witnetm Forcanammer. ‘Das Erechtheum und der Tempel der Athena Polias,’ 
Arch. Ztg., XX XIV, 1876, pp. 106, 107. 


Brief and clear statement of his old views. 


1877 


Nort-Marcet Lampert. ‘Restauration de |’Erechtheion,” a manuscript, unaccompanied 
by drawings, in the Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. 
This little memoir seems to have been written in connection with Lambert’s restoration of the Acropolis. 
Apparently he did not prepare any separate drawings of the Erechtheum. 


636 


188. 


189. 


190. 


190: 


192. 


193. 


194. 


196. 


197, 


198. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


Apoutr Micuaruis. ‘Zur Periegese der Akropolis, VII; Pausanias Wanderung durch den 
Tempel der Polias,’ Ath. Mitt., II, 1877, pp. 15-87. 
The author later abandoned many of the opinions expressed in this article, in which he was much in- 
fluenced by the theories of Boetticher. 
1878 


Lropoip Juuius. Ueber das Erechtheion. Munich. 
A brief description and restoration of the Erechtheum, resulting from a study of the building in Athens. 


Grorca Niemann. ‘The Erechtheum from the northwest’ (restored), in [Otto Benndorfl, 
Vorlegeblitter fiir archdologische Uebungen, Serie C, pl. XII. 


1879 


JAMES FEerRGusson. ‘Supplement to Mr. Fergusson’s paper on the Erechtheum and Temple of 
Minerva Polias at Athens,’ Transactions R. I. B. A., Session 1878-1879, Appendix, pp. 
218-228; pl. 

A discussion of the windows in the side walls and of the niche in the southwest corner, with a theory of 
their functions in the proposed restoration, as well as a polemical reply to a critical letter from Michaelis, 
who had informed him of the existence of the windows. The plate contains a restored plan and sections. 
See Nos. 185, 193. 


PETER WILHELM FoRCHHAMMER. Das Erechtheion: Festgruss und Glickwunsch dem katser- 


lichen deutschen archaeologischen Institut in Rom. Kiel. 


A final statement of his mythological theories and their application to the Erechtheum, with a plan 
closely resembling that in Daduchos (No. 184). 


1880 


JAMES FEeRGusson. Das EHrechtheion und der Tempel der Athene Polias in Athen .. . heraus- 
gegeben von Dr. Heinrich Schliemann. Leipzig. 
A translation by Ludwig Meyer of Fergusson’s two papers (Nos. 185, 191). The discussion of the first 
paper and the correspondence with Forchhammer and Bernier are omitted. 
Orro JAHN. Pausaniae descriptio arcis Athenarum in usum scholarum edidit. Editio altera 
recognita ab Adolfo Michaelis. Aucta cum aliis tabulis tum forma arcis ab I. A. Kaupert 
descripta. Bonn. 


In this edition pls. VI, VII, and VIII are still valuable, as the restorations of the Erechtheum by Pit- 
takis are shown by dotted lines. See Nos. 172, 228. 


. ALEXANDER Stuart Murray. ‘The Erechtheum,’ J. H. S., I, pp. 224-227. 


1881 


RicHARD BorrMann. ‘Neue Untersuchungen am Erechtheion zu Athen’, Ath. Mztt., VI, 1881, 
pp. 372-392. 


An important paper which proved that the windows in the side walls belonged to the church, and did 
much to destroy the validity of Bétticher’s reconstruction of the Greek temple. 


JAMES FreRcusson. ‘Stairs to Pandroseum at Athens,’ J. H. S., I, pp. 83-89. 


A criticism of some points in Murray’s article; see No. 195. 


1882 
ALEXANDER Rizo Ranaassh. ‘Das Erechtheion,’ Ath. Mitt., VII, 1882, pp. 258-273, 321-335. 


A summary of a paper on the same subject, read before the Berlin Archacologische Gesellschaft, June 6, 
1882, appeared in the Berl. phil. W., II, 1882, col. 795. 


4 
a 


199. 


200. 


201. 


202. 


203. 


204. 


206. 


207. 


208. 


209. 


210 


APPENDIX C 637 


1884 
AUGUSTE Cuoisy. Etudes sur Varchitecture grecque. III, L’Erechtheion d’aprés les piéces 
originales de la comptabilité des travaux. Paris. 
GortrrieD Semper. Kleine Schriften. 8vo. Berlin. 


Erechtheum: pp. 109-121, “Ueber das Erechtheion” ; pp. 125-172, “Die neben den Propylaen aufgefun- 
denen Inschriften.”’ 


The first article is a German translation of a paper originally written in French, probably about 1852, 
and previously unprinted. It is a brief statement of the ideas developed more fully in the following article, 
which is a reprint of the letters in the Deutsches Kunstblatt (No. 160). 


1885 


Harotp Norta Fowimr. ‘The Erechtheion at Athens,’ Papers of the American School of 
Classical Studies at Athens, I, pp. 213-236; pls. 
Gustav Frreprich Herrzpera. Athen. Historisch-topographisch dargestellt. Halle. 
Erechtheum, pp. 122-127, 129, 227, 228. Unimportant. 


Eucen Purersen. ‘Zum Erechtheion,’ Ath. Mitt., X, pp. 1-10. 


1887 


PrereR WILHELM ForcunAmmer. ‘Akropolis, Mythologie, neueste Entdeckung eines Tempels,’ 
Allgemeine Zeitung (Munich), No. 289, October 18, 1887, cols. 4257 ff. 
An argument to show that the foundations (of the Hecatompedon) recently discovered did not belong to 


a temple, but enclosed a system of cisterns (the Cecropium), and that all the discoveries in and about the 
Erechtheum since 1837 had confirmed his theories. See Dérpfeld’s reply, No. 205. 


. WitneLmM Dorpreip. Allgemeine Zeitung (Munich), No. 315, November 13, 1887, Beilage. 


A conclusive reply to the questions and arguments of Forchhammer; see No. 204. 


1888 


FRIEDRICH BAUMGARTEN. Hin Rundgang durch die Ruinen Athens. Leipzig. 


Erechtheum, pp. 44-55. 
This little book is a corrected edition of the Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Gymnasiums, 


Werthheim, 1887. 
AvoLF BorTticHER. Die Akropolis von Athen nach den Berichten der Alten und den neuesten 
Erforschungen. Berlin. 
Erechtheum, pp. 17, 18, 214-235, including (pp. 229, 230) an adverse criticism of the Porch of the Maidens 
by the architect, R. Redtenbucher. 
Tatrorp Exy. ‘The Temples of Athena,’ The Antiquary, XVIII, 1888, pp. 233-236. 


A summary, with a brief criticism, of the earlier theories of Dérpfeld. 


FRANCIS CRANMER PENROSE. An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture. 
New and enlarged edition. London. 


Erechtheum, ch. XIII, pp. 88-97; pls. XLI-XLV. 

There was no discussion of the Erechtheum in the first edition. Penrose gave most of his attention to 
the careful measurement of architectural details and refinements; in his restoration of the building he fol- 
lowed Fergusson, and consequently erred in many respects. 


1889 


H. G. Louuine. Hellenische Landeskunde (Miller, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissen- 
schaft, III, B, 1). Nordlingen. 
Erechtheum, pp. 349-351. See No. 245. 


638 


alii 


213. 


214. 


215. 


216. 


ads 


218. 


219. 


220. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


Apour Micuaruis. ‘Die Zeit des Neubaus des Poliastempels,’ Ath. Mitt., XIV, 1889, pp. 
349-366. 


See Ch. V, p. 454. 
1890 


. JANE ELLEN Harrison AND MARGARET DEG. VERRALL. The Mythology and Monuments of 


Ancient Athens. Being a translation of a portion of the “ Attica” of Pausanias by Margaret 
de G. Verrall, with introductory essay and archaeological commentary by Jane E. Harrison. 
8vo. London. 


Erechtheum, pp. 481-496, 511-513. 
The description of the building and the interpretation of Pausanias follow in general the theories of 


Déorpfeld. 
1891 


Rosert Weir Scuuitz; Ernest A. GARDNER. ‘The North Doorway of the Erechtheum,’ 
J. H. S., XII, 1891, pp. 1-16; 3 pls. 


A paper read before the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, February 23, 1891 (J.H.S., XII, 
pp. xxviii f., Athenaeum, 1891, p. 284). Pp. 14-16, ‘Note on the Evidence from the Inscription,’ by E. A. 


Gardner. 
See Chap. I, pp. 98 ff. 


Sipney H. Barnstey. Supplementary Note to Schultz’s paper, zbzd., pp. 381-383. 


1892 


Sercius ANDREIEVITCH IvaNorr. Architektonische Studien, I, herausgegeben von Richard 
Bohn. Text and Atlas. Berlin. 


In Athens, 1857-1858. Hrechtheum: pls. VII-XIV, careful measured drawings, including east, west, and 
north elevations, and numerous architectural details; pl. XXIV, 2, outline sketch from the southwest. 
The text, in Russian and German, contains no information about the Erechtheum. 


ArtTHuR Hamitton Smita. A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman 
Antiquities in the British Museum. London. 
Erechtheum, I, pp. 231-238, Nos. 407-420. 


1893 


ADOLF FURTWANGLER. Meztsterwerke der griechischen Plastik. Berlin. 
Erechtheum, pp. 192-207. See No. 220. 


W. Scuuttz. Werkmass und Zahlenverhdltnisse griechischer Tempel (Erechtheion zu Athen und 
Athene-Tempel auf Aegina). Hanover. 


Cols. 7-15, an argument directed against Dérpfeld’s determination of the length of the Attic foot; 
cols. 22-39, a discussion of the proportions of the Erechtheum to prove the foot equal to 0.3085 m.; cols. 
58, 61, summary of conclusions. 


1895 


JosEF Durm. ‘Der Zustand der antiken Athenischen Bauwerke,’ reprinted from Centralblatt 
fiir Bawerwaltung, XV, 1895. 
Erechtheum, pp. 14-16. 


AvoLr FurtTwAncLer. Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. A Series of Essays on the History of 
Art, edited by Eugénie Sellers. London. 
Erechtheum, pp. 432-442. See No. 217. 


APPENDIX C 639 


1896 


221. Hermann Luckensacu. Die Akropolis von Athen. Munich. 
Erechtheum, pp. 17-23, with plates. See No. 246. 


1897 


222. Hector p’Espovy. Fragments d’architecture antique d’apres les relevés et restaurations des 
anciens pensionnaires de l Académie de France d Rome, 1. Paris. 


Pl. 10, Plan of ‘present state,’ Lambert; north elevation and section (restored); North Portico from 
north, Tétaz; pls. 11-13, Details of the North Portico, Ginain; pls. 14-15, Details of the Porch of the 
Maidens, Brune and Ginain; pl. 16, Details of the anta, Tétaz; pl. 17, Details of the North Door, Ginain. 
See No. 263. 


There is no date on the title-page, but the volume was deposited in the Bibliothéque Nationale in 1897. 


1898 


223. Sir JAMES GrorcE Frazer. Pausanias’s Description of Greece. Translated with a Commentary. 
6 vols. London. 
Erechtheum, I, pp. 38-40; II, pp. 330-344, pl.; V, pp. 513, 514. 


1899 


224. ArTHUR Stopparp Cootey. ‘Athena Polias on the Acropolis of Athens,’ A. J. A., III, 1899, 
pp. 345-408. 


A practically complete collection of Greek references to the cult of Athena on the Acropolis, together with 
a discussion of the ‘‘Old Temple.” 
225. ARTHUR MiucHHérer. Ueber die alten Burgheiligthiimer in Athen. Kiel. 
See No. 234. 
1900 
226. JoHN Henry MippietTon. Plans and Drawings of Athenian Buildings ... edited by E. A. 
Gardner. (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies; Supplementary Papers, III). 
London. 


Erechtheum, pp. 12-14; pls. 9-17. 
Middleton’s note-books, containing many references to the Erechtheum as studied by him in 1875, 1890, 
and 1892, with numerous plans and sections of details, are now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. 


227. Martin P. Nitsson. ‘The oxjua rpcaivys in the Erechtheum,’ J. H. S., X XI, 1900, pp. 325- 
333. 
An endeavor to show that the marks of the trident are to be found at the west end of the north aisle of 
the church. 
1901 
228. Orro Jaun BT ApotF MicuaeEtis. Arx Athenarum a Pausania descripta in usum Scholarum 
ediderunt, etc. Editio tertia Actis Arcis et fasciculo tabularum aucta. Bonn. 
Contains a practically complete collection of all references to the building and to its cults in the Greek 
and Latin authors and inscriptions. See Nos. 172, 194. 
1902 


229. WiLHELM DOrpPFELD. ‘Die Zeit des Aelteren Parthenon,’ Ath. Mitt., XX VII, 1902, pp. 399- 
416. 
Pp. 401, 414, 415, a brief statement of his reasons for dating the commencement of the Erechtheum in 
; 437 B.c. See Ch. V, p. 455. 
230. Ernest ArtHur GARDNER. Ancient Athens. London and New York. 
Erechtheum, pp. 235-239, 353-372. 


235. 


236. 


237. 


238. 


239. 


240. 


241. 


242. 


243. 


244. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


. Spyrripion Lamsros. ‘Notes from Athens,’ Athenaewm (London), 1902, No. 3891, p. 665. 


Summary of the project for the restoration of the Erechtheum. See No. 236. 


. Avotr MicHaEuis. ‘APXAIOD NEQ>. Die alten Athenatempel der Akropolis von Athen,’ 


Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 1-31. 


. Avotr MicHag.is. ‘Die Bestimmung der Raume des Erechtheion,’ zbid., pp. 81-85. 


A reply to the criticisms of Petersen (No. 235). 


. Artour Miucunoérer. ‘Nachtrigliche Betrachtungen tiber die drei Athenaheiligthiimer auf 


der Akropolis von Athen,’ Philologus, LXI, 1902, pp. 441-446. 
See No. 225. 
EvuGcren Prerersen. ‘Die Erechtheion-Periegese des Pausanias,’ Jb. Arch. I., XVII, 1902, pp. 
59-64. 
A criticism of some of the views expressed in the first article by Michaelis (No. 232). 
Rosert WEIR Scuuttz. Athenaewm (London), 1902, No. 3896, pp. 825, 826. 


A vigorous protest against the projected restoration of the Erechtheum. See No. 231. 


1902-1909 


Tpaxrixa ths ev "AOhvats ’“Apxatodoyiys ‘“Eratpelas. Athens. 
Reports on the progress of the restoration of the Erechtheum in 1902, p. 33; 1903, pp. 25, 59-62; 1904, 
p. 16; 1907, pp. 64, 125-128, pl.; 1908, pp. 56, 224-226, pl.; 1909, p. 59. 


1903 


WiLHELM DorpFELD. ‘Zum Erechtheion,’ Ath. Mitt., XXVIII, 1903, pp. 465-469. 
An announcement of the discovery by Balanos of the opening in the roof of the North Portico; see Ch. I, 
pp. 89ff. ad 
Karu HacutmMann. Die Akropolis von Athen im Zettalter des Perikles (Gymnasial-Bibliothek, 
35). Leipzig. 
Erechtheum, pp. 28-37. Unimportant. 
1904 


‘Die Dreizackmal des Poseidon im Erechtheion,’ Berl. phil. W., XXIV, 1904, cols. 542, 543. 
An anonymous summary of Dorpfeld’s note in Ath. Mitt. (No. 238). 
WitHEeLM Doérprevp. ‘Der urspriingliche Plan des Erechtheions,’ Ath. Mitt., XXIX, 1904, 
pp. 101-107. 
See Ch. V, pp. 458 f. 


ApOLF FuRTWANGLER. ‘Zu den Tempeln der Akropolis von Athen,’ Sitzb. Miinch. Akad., 
1904, pp. 370-388. 


[RopeRtT] Reinwarpr. ‘Der urspriingliche Plan des Erechtheion nach W. Dorpfeld. Vom 
architektonischen und kiinstlerischen Standpunkt betrachtet,’ Stid-deutsche Bauzeitung, XIV, 
1904, pp. 393-396. 


A criticism of Dérpfeld’s theory (No. 241), with elevations showing the building restored according to 
Dorpfeld. A new (and untenable) restoration is also proposed and illustrated. 
1905 


Hermann Freericxs. Die drei Athenatempel der Akropolis. [Programm] Minster. 


A summary statement of Dérpfeld’s views, with very little discussion or argumentation. 


245. 


246. 


247. 


250. 


251. 


252. 


253. 
254. 


255. 


256. 


257. 


258. 


259. 


APPENDIX C 641 


WatTuER JupEIcH. Die Topographie von Athen. (Miiller, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 
III, 2, 1). Munich. 
Erechtheum, pp. 243-253. See also No. 210. 
HERMANN LuckenBacu. Die Akropolis von Athen. Second edition, enlarged. Munich. 
Erechtheum, pp. 27-33; figs. 42-51. See No. 221. 


1906 


GORHAM Puituies Stevens. ‘The East Wall of the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., X, 1906, pp. 47-71. 
See Ch. I, pp. 30 ff. 
1907 


. MircHett Carrouu. The Attica of Pausanias. Boston. 


Erechtheum, pp. 286-289, Excursus XI. 


. Eugen Petersen. Die Burgtempel der Athenaia. Berlin. 


Erechtheum: IV, pp. 61-93, ‘‘Erechtheus-Poseidon”’; V, pp. 98-112, ‘Das neue Erechtheion”’; VI, pp. 
112-140, “Die Cella der Polias’’; pp. 141-146, a summary of the conclusions. 
1908 


Lacry Davis Caskry AND Bert Hopce Hinz. ‘The Metopon in the Erechtheum,’ A.J. A.., 
XII, 1908, pp. 184-197. 
See Ch. I, pp. 174 f.; IV, pp. 301 ff. 


Martin Lutupr D’OocE. The Acropolis of Athens. New York and London. 
Erechtheum, pp. 195-227, 310-311 (the church), 352 (Pausanias). 
Aueust Frickenuaus. ‘Das Athenabild des alten Tempels in Athen,’ Ath. Mitt., XX XIII, 
1908, pp. 17-33. 
Avueust FrickenHaAus. ‘Erechtheus,’ zbid., pp. 171-176. 
W. R. Leruasy. Greek Buildings represented by Fragments in the British Museum. London. 
Erechtheum, pp. 158-171. Construction of the Ionic volute, pp. 205-207. 


EvGcEen Petersen. Athen (Beriihmte Kunststddte, 11). Leipzig. 
Erechtheum, pp. 97-116. A brief statement of the views defended in his Burgtempel der Athenaia (No. 


249), without argument or citation of authorities. 
1909 
EvuGcen Petersen. ‘Hekatompedon,’ Klio, IX, 1909, pp. 229-247. 
A reply to the criticisms of his Burgtempel der Athenaia (No. 249) by G. Korte (Golt. Gel. Anz., 1908, 
pp. 837 ff.) and A. Frickenhaus (No. 252), 
1910 
DanteL Bauv-Bovy Er Frépfiric Borssonnas. En Gréce, par monts et par vaux; avec préface 
par Th. Homolle et des notices archéologiques par G. Nicole. Geneva. 
Erechtheum, pp. 152, 1538. 
Bert Hopce Hiww. ‘Structural Notes on the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., XIV, 1910, pp. 291-297, 
See Ch. IV, Inscriptions XIII, col. 1; XVH, col. 1; Commentary, pp. 410 f. 


1911 
Lacry Davis Caskny. ‘Die Baurechnung des Erechtheion fiir das Jahre 409/8 vor Chr.,’ 


Ath. Mitt., XXXVI, 1911, pp. 317-343. 
See Ch. IV, pp. 322 ff. 


642 


260. 


261. 


262. 


263. 


264. 


265. 


266. 


267. 


268. 


269. 


270. 


271. 


THE ERECHTHEUM 


WitHetm Doérprevp. ‘Zu den Bauwerken Athens: Erechtheion und alter Tempel,’ Ath. Mitt., 
XXXVI, 1911, pp. 39-49. 


A defence of his views against the criticisms of Petersen (No. 248). 


Apour Struck. Griechenland, I, Athen und Attika. Vienna. 

Erechtheum, pp. 53, 56, 58, 61, 62, 73, 74 (these passages refer to the later history), 95-100, 140; not 
important. 
1912 

Grorce W. Exvperxin. Problems in Periclean Buildings (Princeton Monographs in Art and 
Archaeology, II). Princeton. 

Ch. II, pp. 13-18, “An interpretation of the Caryatid Porch”; III, pp. 19-48, “The Erechtheum as 
built’; IV, pp. 49-58, ‘‘The Erechtheum as planned.” 

Hector p’Espouy eT GrorGEes SEuRE. Monuments antiques, relevés et restaurés par les arch- 
itectes pensionnaires de l Académie de France ad Rome. Notices archéologiques par G. Seure. 
(Publication de V Institut de France, éditée sous le direction de H. d’Espouy.) 

Vol. I. ‘Section Seconde; Athénes; I, Acropole, D, Erechthéion. Envoi de Tétaz (1848). Brief text, 
p. 10; pls. 36-41, reproducing eleven of the first twelve drawings of Tétaz (No. 132). The drawings of 
details are published in part in Fragments antiques (No. 222). 
GusTAvVE Foucéres. Athénes (Les Villes d’Art célébres). Paris. 
Erechtheum, pp. 95-104. 
1913 
WILHELM D6RPFELD. ‘Die Beleuchtung der griechischen Tempel,’ Zeztschrift fiir die Geschichte 
der Architektur, VI, 1913, pp. 9, 12 f. 
The windows in the east and west ends of the Erechtheum and their purpose. 
CHARLES Hratp WELLER. Athens and its Monuments. 8vo. London and New York. 
Erechtheum, pp. 311-340. 
1916 

Maxime Couuienon. ‘L’Emplacement du Cécropion 4 |’Acropole d’Athénes,’ Mém. Acad. 

Insc., XLI, 1916, pp. 1-17; 3 pls. 
See Ch. I, p. 127, note 2. 

ArTHUR Hamitton SmitH. ‘Lord Elgin and his Collection,’ J. H. S., XXXVI, 1916, pp. 
163-372. 

For the references to the Erechtheum see App. A, XVI. 


1919 
WILHELM DoOrPFELD. ‘Das Hekatompedon in Athen,’ Jb. Arch. I., XXXIV, 1919, pp. 1-39; 
3 pls. 


A full statement of his latest views regarding the ‘‘Old Temple” and the route of Pausanias on the 
Acropolis, with incidental references to the history and form of the Erechtheum. 


1921 


WitHELM Dorprep. ‘Zum urspriinglichen Plane des Erechtheions. Eine Entgegnung,’ Jb. 
kl. Alt., XLVII, 1921, pp. 433-439. 
A reply to the criticisms of Rodenwaldt (No. 271). 
GERHART RopENWALDT. ‘Die Form des Erechtheions,’ Jb. kl. Alt., XLVII, 1921, pp. 1-13; 
plan; 2 pls. 
A criticism of Dérpfeld’s theory as to the original plan of the Erechtheum (No. 241). 


272. 


273. 


274. 


275. 


276. 


277. 


APPENDIX C 643 


CHARLES Hmratp WELLER. ‘The Original Plan of the Erechtheum,’ A. J. A., XXV, 1921, 
pp. 130-141. 


A criticism and rejection of Dérpfeld’s theory (No. 241). 


1923 


G. A. S. Snisper. ‘De tempel van Roma en Augustus en het Erechtheum op de Acropolis te 
Athene,’ Mededeelingen van het Nederlandsch Historisch Instituut te Rome, III, 1923, pp. 73- 
112; 11 figs. on 7 pls. 


Also a summary in French, ‘Sur le Temple de Rome et Auguste et l’Erechthéion sur l’Acropole 
d’Athénes,’ R. Arch., XIX, 1924, pp. 223-226. 


1924 
GrorcE W. Evperkin. Kantharos: Studies in Dionysiac and Kindred Cults (Princeton Mono- 
graphs in Art and Archaeology, XII). Princeton. 


Chap. X, pp. 77-79, “A possible Allusion to the Erechtheion in the Peace of Aristophanes.” 
A study of vss. 564-618 to show that they refer to the political and religious controversies which are sup- 
posed to have compelled the curtailment of the original plan of the Erechtheum. See Ch. V, pp. 463 ff. 


LEICESTER BopinE Houuanp. ‘Erechtheum Papers,’ A. J. A., XXVIII, 1924, pp. 1-23, 
142-169, 402-434; 2 pls. 


I, “‘The Remains of the Pre-Erechtheum” (pp. 1-23); II, “‘The Strong House of Erechtheus” (pp. 142- 


169); III, ‘The Post-Persian Revision” (pp. 402-425); IV, ‘‘The Building called the Erechtheum”’ (pp. 425- 
434), 


1925 


Kurt Mier. ‘Erechtheion und Propylaen,’ Arch. Anz., XXXVIII/IX, 1923-24, cols, 
356-358. 


A summary of a paper read before the Berlin Archaeologische Gesellschaft. 


1926 
Arruur Hamitton Smita. ‘The Building Inscriptions of the Acropolis of Athens,’ Journal 
R. I. B. A., XXXIV, 1926-27, pp. 127-1387. 


A paper read before the Institute on Dec. 6, 1926; the inscriptions relating to the Erechtheum are dis- 
cussed on pp. 134-137. 


INDEX oF PRopER NAMES 


Anonymous, 111, 117, 150, 237, 240. Boissonnas, F., 257. 
Arundale, F., 98, 146. Borrmann, R., 196. 


Bracebridge, C. H., 103. 


Ballu, T., 127. Bramsen, J., 51, 52, 56. 
Barnsley, 8. H., 214. Breton, E., 174. 
Basevi, G., 50. Broughton, 157. 
Baud-Bovy, D., 257. Bruce, T., 36. 
Baumgarten, F., 206. Burrow, E. J., 48, 49. 
Bedford, F., 47. 

Beulé, C. E., 153. Canina, L., 92. 

Bisani, A., 17, 19. Carroll, M., 248. 
Blaquiere, E., 75. Caskey, L. D., 250, 259. 
Bétticher, A., 207. Cassas, L. F., 18, 31. 
Botticher, C., 133, 140, 154, 156, 158, 168, 170, 175. Castellazzi, G., 180. 


644 THE ERECHTHEUM 


Chandler, R., 11, 12, 32, 76. 
Chenavard, A. M., 134, 169. 
Choisy, A., 199. 

Cipriani, G. B., 21. 

Clarke, E. D., 42. 

Clifton, E. N., 99. 
Cockerell, C. R., 39 

Cole, W., 94. 

Collignon, M., 267. 

Cooley, A. 8., 224. 


Dalton, R., 1. 
Davydov, V., 115. 
Dodwell, E., 57, 68. 


Dérpfeld, W., 205, 229, 238, 241, 260, 265, 269, 270. 


Donaldson, J., 59. 
Donaldson, T. L., 60, 89, 104. 
D’Ooge, M. L., 251. 

Du Moneel, T. A. L., 128. 
Durm, J 218) 219; 

Dyer ly 182; 


Eastlake, C. L., 61. 
Elderkin, G. W., 262, 274. 
Elgin, 36. 

Bly, 0.208: 

Espouy, H. d’, 222, 263. 


Fauvel, L. F.S., 15. 
Fergusson, J., 185, 191, 198, 197. 
Flandin, E., 114. 


Forchhammer, P. W., 90, 105, 124, 141, 171, 184, 


186, 192, 204. 
Fougéres, G., 264. 
Fowler, H. N., 201. 
Frazer, J. G., 223. 
Freericks, H., 244. 
Frickenhaus, A., 252, 253. 
Fuller, J., 83. 
Furtwangler, A., 217, 220, 242. 


Gabb, T., 33. 

Galeani Napione di Cocconato G., 62. 
Gardner, E. A., 213, 280. 

Garnier, J. L. C., 147. 

Garston, E., 120. 

Gell, W., 25 

Giffard, E., 106. 

Ginainy Po Rid 100: 


Hachtmann, K., 239. 

Haller von Hallerstein, C., 38. 
Harrison, J. E., 212. 

Heller, B. K., 148. 
Herrmann, H., 100. 
Hertzberg, G. F., 202. 
Hettner, H. J. T., 149, 155. 
Hill, B. H., 250, 258. 


Hittorff, J. I., 87, 142. 
Hobhouse, J. C., 40, 157. 
Holland, L. B., 275. 
Hughes, T. 8., 63, 69. 


Inwood, H. W., 73, 80. 
Ittar, S., 26. 
Ivanoff, 8. A., 215. 


Jahn, O., 172, 194, 228. 
Jenkins, W., 81, 86. 
Judeich, W., 245. 
Julius, L., 189. 


Kilian, G. C., 5, 6. 


Lambert, N. M., 187. 
Lambros, 8., 231. 
Landon, C. P., 41. 
Laurent, P. E., 70. 
Leake, W. M., 71, 118. 
Lechevalier, J. B., 28. 
Legrand, J. G., 35. 

Le Roy, J. D., 3, 8. 
Lethaby, W. R., 254. 
Little, T., 77. 

Loiling, H. G., 210. 
Luckenbach, H., 221, 246. 


Marilhat, P., 119. 
Martin, G., 58. 


Middleton, af Hale 226. 
Milchhéfer, A, 225, 234. 
Miles, C., 125. 
Mommeen, A., 178. 
Montagu, J., 22. 
Morritt, J. B. S., 20. 
Miiller, C. O., 64, 90. 
Miller, K., 276. 

Miiller, W. J., 112. 
Murray, A. 8., 195. 


Niemann, G., 190. 
Nilsson, M. P., 227. 


Page, W., 53. 

Palmer, J., 34. 

Pars, W., 7. 

Penrose, F. C., 209. 
Petersen, C., 158, 164, 165. 


Petersen, E., 208, 235, 249, 255, 256. 


Pittakis, K., 95. 
Pomardi, 8., 65. 
Poppe, C., 129. 
Préaulx, M. F., 24 


Prokesch von Osten, A., 98, 107. 


Quast, A. F. von, 116. 


Michaelis, AS 173, 188, 211, 228, 232, 2338. 


Rangabé, A. R., 108, 121, 130, 198. 
Reinhardt, R., 243. 

Reveley, W., 14. 

Revett, N., 16, 37, 43, 79, 84. 

Rey, E., 177. 

Ricardo, H. R., 131. 

Riedesel, J. H. von, 9, 10, 29. 
Rochette, D. R., 189. 

Rodenwaldt, G., 271. 

Rose, H. J., 78. 


Ross, L., 96, 101, 109, 136, 137, 159. 


Sandwich, 22. 
Santzo, G. M., 122. 
Sayer, R., 4. 
Schaubert, E., 91. 
Scholl, A., 126. 
Schultz, R. W., 213, 236. 
Schultz, W., 218. 
Scoles, J. J., 74. 
Scrofani, S., 23, 27. 
Semper, G., 160, 200. 
Seure, G., 263. 
Sharpe, R. H., 55. 
Skene, J., 113. 
Smirke, R., 30. 


APPENDIX C 645 


Smith, A. H., 216, 268, 277. 
Snijder, G. A. S., 278. 

Spiers, R. P., 176, 183. 
Stevens, G. P., 247. 

Struck, A., 261. 

Stuart, J., 2, 16, 37, 43, 79, 84. 


Taylor, G. L., 54, 179. 

Tétaz, J. M., 1382, 148. 

Thiersch, F., 135, 138, 144, 145, 151, 166, 167. 
Thiirmer, J., 72. 

Trevelyan, P. J., 123. 

Trojani, F., 88. 


Velsen, A. von, 152. 
Verrall, M. deG., 212. 
Visconti, E. Q., 44, 45. 


Watkins, T., 18. 

Weller, C. H., 266, 272. 
Wilkins, W., 46, 49, 97, 110. 
Williams, H. W., 66, 85. 
Wolfe, J. L., 67. 

Woods, J., 55, 82. 
Wordsworth, C., 102, 161. 
Wyatt, J. D., 162. 


646 APPENDICES 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 


I. Tue Supports oF THE TRANSVERSE BEAM. (Page 154) 


There is some evidence which suggests that the corbels on the side walls not only supported the lower 
ends of wooden struts but also carried marble pilasters beneath the transverse beam (Fig. 235) and 
thus on the line of the later Roman cross-wall (p. 156). This evidence is contained in the cuttings 
for the clamps and dowels which held the blocks in courses 2 and 3 of the north wall. 

As has been already pointed out (p. 50; Fig. 32), on the inside of the wall these two courses are 
composed of thin blocks, which mask the ends of the beams and interbeams in the ceiling of the 
North Portico. The facing blocks in course 2 were held to these beams and interbeams by F4 clamps 
running north and south. Of the four cuttings for these clamps now visible (PLaTe XI; Fig. 55), 
the two easternmost (in the first interbeam and the second beam) secured a block about five Attic 
feet long, if we may judge from the spacing of the clamps, which are about three Attic feet apart 
with the first clamp about one foot from the eastern joint (PLate XI). The block, therefore, ended 


Figure 235. ALTERNATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF 
SUPPORTS OF TRANSVERSE BEAM: ISOMETRIC 


at the east edge of the later cross-wall, that is, at the east edge of the hypothetical pilaster, instead of 
about one foot farther east, in line with the joints in courses 6, 8, 10, etc. (PLatE XV). The other 
two clamp cuttings are both in the second interbeam. ‘The eastern one is not perpendicular to the 
face of the wall but runs obliquely from northwest to southeast, so that the projecting southern 
end of the clamp must have been very close to the axis of the later cross-wall. It is, therefore, 
properly placed to hold a block in the position assumed for the pilaster. The oblique cutting is due 
to the joint between the interbeam and the beam on the east, which prevented the northern half of 
the clamp from being set on the axis of the pilaster. The western clamp in this interbeam very prob- 
ably held a block ending at the west edge of the pilaster. The blocks in course 3 were held by dowels 
in course 4, and the cuttings for these dowels (PLatTE XI), which mark the position of the vertical 
joints in course 3, show plainly that one of these joints fell at the west edge of the Roman cross-wall, 
instead of on its axis as the normal jointing of the wall requires (PLATE XY). 

It is clear, therefore, that in both courses, 2 and 3, the vertical jointing beneath the great beam 
did not correspond to that in the courses below. Such an irregularity is inexplicable, if the surface 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 647 


of the wall was here visible, but is easily understood, if at this point a block two courses high, form- 
ing a pilaster, was set into the wall. Such a construction was obviously preferable to clamping the 
pilaster to the face of the relatively thin blocks of sheathing. 

The face of course 4 yields no evidence as to the presence of the pilaster, for it has been cut away 
to receive the Roman cross-wall, and the end of the inserted block is still in place (PLatEe XI; Fig. 
98). In course 5 the traces of anathyrosis already mentioned (p. 154) show that here the pilaster 
was applied to the face of the wall, and not inset. The absence of clamp cuttings in the top of this 
course suggests, however, that this block of the pilaster, like that above, was two courses high and 
was secured by clamps in the top of course 4. As thus restored the pilaster resembles the north 
anta of the West Facade, where two blocks, each two courses high, correspond to courses 2 to 5 
of the north wall (Fig. 39). 

Since the four upper courses of the south wall have been reconstructed without reference to the 
original position of the blocks, which indeed could not be determined, they now afford no evidence 
as to the existence of the pilaster on this wall, but the slight countersinking with traces of anathy- 
rosis in course 5 (p. 154) indicates that here, as on the north wall, the lower part of the pilaster was 
applied, not inset. 

In the present condition of the epicranitis on the north wall (p. 51; Figs. 32, 34, 55), it is impos- 
sible to determine whether the capital of the pilaster was inset, or applied to the face of the wall like 
the capital of the west anta of the Porch of the Maidens (PLarr X XVII, 7). 

If this restoration is accepted, as the evidence just presented seems to warrant, it is clear that 
the proof of the presence of struts, derived from the anathyrosis in course 5 on both the north and 
south walls (p. 154), disappears; but in view of the position of the purlins in the roof over the west- 
ern rooms (p. 76; Fig. 49), and of the obvious desirability of additional support to a beam having 
so great a span and under so heavy a strain, it is surely reasonable to assume that such struts were 
employed (Fig. 235), even though no definite traces of their use can now be detected. 


(J. MP; GP-S) 


Il. THe Date or Inscription I. (Page 280) 


From the text of this decree we learn only that it dealt with a temple requiring the services of an 
architect, and when we divorce it from the tradition which connects it with the Erechtheum and from 
the restorations which have been prompted by the tradition, all certainty disappears. It may be the 
decree moved by Epigenes to which reference is made in Inscription II, 1. 5, but it can just as well 
be another decree relating to the Erechtheum. In fact there is no reason for connecting it with the 
Erechtheum at all, for it may relate to any building enterprise, either large or small, in which Athens 
was engaged at the time. 5 

The only clue to its date, aside from the character of the lettering (which seems much earlier than 
409/8 3.c.), is found in the name of the epistates. Smikythos presided. While the name is not ex- 
actly rare, it is not one of the more usual ones, and when we find a Smikythos referred to in the 
Knights of Aristophanes (969), a play which was produced in the spring of 424 B.c., and a Smikythos 
secretary of the Treasurers of Athena in 424/3 B.c. (I. G., I’, 241, 242), the question immediately 
arises whether there were two men of this name prominent in public life during the period of the 
Peloponnesian War. 

A third contemporary reference to a Smikythos makes him the father of one of the epistatai in 
charge of the statues of the Hephaesteum (J. G., I’, 370), and there can be little doubt that this 


1 The block now in courses 2 and 3 of the anta is modern, but the drawings of Dalton and Page (PuLarEs L, 2; 
LI, 3) show that the original block was two courses high. 


648 APPENDICES 


Apolexis was one of the 30 syngrapheis of 411 8.c. (Harpocration, s. v. ’AéAnéis = Foe II, 664; ef. 
Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 29), an opponent of Antiphon after the rule of the Four Hundred in 411/10 
B.C. (ibid. s.v. oracwwrns). One need not hesitate to identify the treasurer of 424 B.c. with the father 
of Apolexis, for the offices held by the two men class them as men of wealth with a fondness for poli- 
tical life. It is of course unlikely that the relationship should be reversed, and that the Apolexis 
prominent in 411 B.c. should have been the father of the Smikythos of 424 B.c. 

Accepting this identification we learn that the deme of Smikythos was Iphistiadai of the tribe 
Acamantis. At this point in our investigation we turn to a decree of 427/6 B.c., which was passed in 
the prytany of Acamantis when —thos presided. Now names ending in —thos are very rare, so rare 
that it is not difficult to believe that the epistates of J. G. I’, 111 was the —thos of I. G. I?, 60; and as 
the prytanizing tribe is that of Apolexis, the son of Smikythos, our identifications become the more 
probable. It follows then that the ‘‘Erechtheum decree” is to be assigned to the prytany of Aca- 
mantis in 427/6 B.c., a date which is much more satisfactory than 410/09 B.c. in view of the fact that 
the political activity of Smikythos is dated during the period of the Archidamian War, while that 
of his son, beginning soon after the last recorded office of his father, lasted at least until 411/10 B.c. 

Thus although certainty is impossible, it seems best to dissociate Inscription I from the Erech- 
theum and to associate it with building activity during the first years of the war. 


[A. B. West] 


III. Inscription XXIX. (Page 422) 


Information regarding the following additional fragment of the building inscriptions was furnished 
by W. B. Dinsmoor in September, 1926. 
XXIX. Fragment, 0.085 m. high, 0.19 m. wide, 0.038 m. thick. Broken at the right, at the 
bottom, and at the back; original top and left edge preserved. Stoichedon. In the National Museum. 
Lolling, AeAriov ’Apx. 1888, p. 118, No. 2. Assigned by Lolling to the Erechtheum, but since 
overlooked. Brought to the attention of Professor Dinsmoor by Professors Adolf Wilhelm and 


A. B. West. 
Facsimile, Figure 236. 


aS 9 TY SF Piet 
ANEEFEFIII AHMMA TO 
MAT OS KEPAAA|ON [AHH 
EM] THENANAION|AoSTE 
HEAHMMANAPA TAM | ANT H& 
POBAAIZ |OKAIS YNAPxop 
THI THSPPYTANE! As: x 
AKFEIOILSTHIAOHNA 


Fiaure 236. INSCRIPTION XXIX 


es..es FINI. yaprns [eis eyypadip avrry pag- 
wy FFFIN., = Agupwarols cal churavros avadd- 
peros xebadavoy PAH HTS” = se eee 
emt THs Iavé.ovidos tet dprns mputavevoc- 

5 ns, AjMua Tapa Tamay ris [6, rapa Bidirro II- 
poBaiato kal cuvapxorv[ Twy.. 2... ee ee ee 
The Ths mpvtavetas :X [ eis Ovolay rots ’Av- 
aKelots rie “ADnvalal,| ania 
shales wheat OUT Ohare: O foster le ee a 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 649 


— — —— Paper for inscribing the copies, 

3 drachmae, 3 obols. Sum total of receipts and 
expenditures, 800(+) drachmae. — — — — 

In the fourth prytany, that of Pandionis, 

5 received from the treasurers of the goddess, Philippos 
of Probalinthos and his fellow magistrates, on the 
day of the prytany, 1000 drachmae. For a sacrifice 
to Athena at the Anakeia — — — — 


On this fragment Professor Dinsmoor has supplied the following commentary. 

The new fragment is written in Ionic letters, as is the case in XX VII and XXVIII; but the letters 
themselves are much larger and betray a conscious attempt to imitate the letters of 408/7 B.c. The 
entries also are of the same character as those of 408/7 B.c. But the width of the column, instead of 
being about 0.208 m., was 0.277 m. and thus resembled fragments XX VII and XXVIII. For the 
inscription may be restored with 35 letters to the line, and is perfectly stoichedon, with a letter 
spacing of 0.008 m., so that the width of the column would be 34 X 0.008 + 0.005 = 0.277 m. 
At the left edge is an excessively wide margin of 0.028 m.; assuming that the other margins were 
0.012—0.013 m., as in the earlier series, and that there were three rather than four columns to the 
slab, we obtain for the width of the slab 0.896 m., exactly as in the accounts of 408/7 B.c. And that 
the slab belongs to the same series is obvious from its appearance; it was evidently of the same thick- 
ness, about 0.10 m., and was fastened in the same manner by two dowels on the top and two on the 
bottom; one such dowel remains, 0.065 m. long and 0.043 m. deep, 0.068 m. from the left edge of the 
stone and 0.038 m. from the face. The top of the stone forms a polished bed, as in the other slabs; 
the left edge is also polished and so might have been exposed, but on the analogy of the other slabs 
we must assume that it was concealed in a joint. The height of the slab was probably the usual 
0.958 m., and we must assume that it formed part of the middle or lower tier of the series of three, 
erected as revetment before it was inscribed; for the horizontal joint at the top cuts exactly through 
the middle of a line of lettering. 

With the knowledge that there were 35 letters in each line, it is obvious that the gap between 
OEO (1. 5) and the demotic of the chairman of the board of Treasurers contained eleven letters; 
and, since it is certain that the fragment must be dated almost immediately after 408/7 B.c., we 
are justified in restoring zapa @iAlirro, repeating zapa on the analogy of the seventh and ninth 
prytanies in 408/7 B.c., and taking the name from the inventory of the pronaos of the Parthenon 
which can be assigned to 407/6 B.c.! It is true that Philippos of Probalinthos is not specifically 


1 7. G. I?, 255 is assigned to 407/6 B.c. in both editions of the Corpus. Probably, however, only the second para- 
graph of J. G. I2, 255, containing the names of the ten Treasurers who handed over the treasures to the Hellenotamiae 
of the following year (the archonship of Callias, 406/5 B.c.), actually dates from 407/6 B.c. The preceding paragraph, 
separated from that below by an empty gap of 0.10 m., would preferably date from 408/7 B.c., when, as we know from 
the Erechtheum accounts of that year, Aresaichmos of Agryle was chairman of the Treasurers; by some error of the 
stone-cutter the prescript of the inscription was omitted. Then 7. G. 12, 254, which is cut on the same stele with a gap 
of 0.075 m. separating it from the first paragraph of J. G. 12, 255, should date from 409/8 B.c.; it could not by any 
possibility date from 408/7 B.c., the date to which it is assigned in both editions of the Corpus, because of the dis- 
crepancy between the names of the chairmen of the Treasurers, Phi— — — — of in J. G. 12, 254, and Aresaichmos of 
Agryle in the Erechtheum accounts (XVII, col. 1, 1. 28; col. 1, 1. 25). The assignment of J. G. I?, 254, to 409 /8 B.C. 
seems to be confirmed, furthermore, by the traces of the name of the chairman of the succeeding Treasurers to whom 
the treasures were handed over, the name having ten letters with faint traces of what seem to be P and E for the second 
and third, so that the restoration ’Apecaixuo is perfectly possible (the restoration Kadt..... in the Corpus is pure 
hypothesis), while the deme in question is Agryle. Thus the stele (Nat. Mus. 6774) would have contained the 
inventories of 409/8, of 408/7 (with the prescript omitted), and the statement of 407/6 whereby the Treasurers handed 
over their charge to the Hellenotamiae of 406/58.c. The dating of Philippos of Probalinthos and his colleagues as 
of 407/6 B.c. is thereby confirmed. 


650 APPENDICES 


mentioned as the chairman of this board of Treasurers, all ten being named in the order of their tribes; 
but from the fact that he is so designated in the Erechtheum fragment X XIX, we may infer that if 
the Parthenon inventory of this year had followed the usual formula, he alone would have been 
mentioned. 

Because of the fact that the official title for the year 408/7 B.c. was symmetrically located with 
reference to the four slabs in each tier, it is probable that the right half of the fourth slab would have 
been left vacant and that the accounts of the following year (with a greater width of column) would 
have been begun on an independent fifth row of slabs. Fragment X XIX formed the left edge of this 
fifth row, column XV of the entire inscription; and, since it is from the end of the third prytany and 
the beginning of the fourth, we must place it well down in the column, at the top of the lowest tier 
of slabs. Probably these accounts of 407/6 B.c. occupied only the three columns (X V—XVII) on the 
fifth row of slabs; for the building was practically complete and the work was of a trivial nature, with 
total expenses of only 800 (+) and 1000 drachmae in two prytanies, as contrasted with 1790 7/12, 
4302 1/6, 1239 1/6, and 2400 (+) drachmae in four successive prytanies of the second half of the 


preceding year. 


INDICES 


* 
> 
.% 
ce, 
“a 
i * 
et. 
; eye 
at © 
a. 
m 
’ 
7 
, af 
4 ow 


’ 
a 
a 
-\F 
. 


INDICES 


I. THE FRAGMENTS OF THE FRIEZE 


In the Acropolis Museum 


Museum Number in Museum Number in Museum Number in Museum Number in 
Number Chapter III Number Chapter III Number Chapter III Number Chapter III 
284 58 . 1229 67 1280 108 2818 73 

1071 fig 1234 12 1281 82 2819 76 lower part 
1072 13 1235 106 1282 107 2820 86 
1073... 1-766 - 1236* p. 276 1283 2244 2821 88 (see 1208) 

ioe UE 6 1236a A 1284 15 2822 1 
1075 84 12366 =:1105 1285 19 2825 4 
1076 85 1237 7 1286 30 2826 40 
1077 78 1238 10 1287a 4} 2829 75 
1078 87 1239 18 1287b 96 2830 } 3 
1133 109 12394 F 1288 49 2830a 
1169 H 1240 31 1290 2 2832 50 
1195 64 1241 33 1291 5 2833 36 
1196 92 1242 91 1292 55 2834 37 
1197 69 1244 34 1293 83 2836 65 
1198 80 1245 76 upper part 1294 3 2837 22 
1199 20 1246 38 1295 16 2839 32 
1200 68 1247 Do 1296 9 2842 29 
1201 48 1248 62 1297 81 2843 25 
1202 28 1249 27 1298 42 2844 74 
1203 52 1250 26 1299 70 3143 G 
1204 90 1251 79 1300 7 B20d 101 
1205 54 1255 89 1301 I 3309 14 
1206 71 1261 39 1302 43 4225 J 
1208 88 (see 2821) 1262 93 1304 21 4861 97 
1209 23 1263 B 1305 47 [4865] 102 (see p. 266) 
1216 12 1266 C 1306 45 3437T 59 
1217 95 1269 E 1307 17 3438 60 
1220 51 1270 24 2286 (?) p. 276 3439 61 
1221 46 1271 100 2473 99 
1227 30 1275 63 2627 94 


No inventory number: 56, 57, 102 (old 4865), D, K. 
In the Berlin Museum: 103, 104, 110, 111, L. 

In the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England: 98. 
In Sir John Soane’s Museum, London: 112. 


* Not frieze. 
+ The last three numbers are those of the inventory of the National Museum, Athens (see p. 258). 


653 


654. INDICES 


II. PROPER NAMES IN THE INSCRIPTIONS 


De ADA! Fiay See AOE Rado 

*Ayabavop, XX, ur, 3. , Adomexéor oix., XVI, 
Ly pee LL te, 0. 

"Avyyedjdey, XXVII, 12. 

’Ayopavépos, é€v Koddvror oik., XVII, 11, 74. 

’Avpundebev, II, 2; XIII, 1, 57,65; XV, XVI, p. 378; 
XVII, 1, 28 (Haypudedev); 11, 9, 26. 

’Aypuneot, VIIIA, 3, 5, 6, 12, 16; X, 1, 23; XIII, 
1, 11, 20, 26. Haypvdeor, XVII 1, 11, 51, 88: 

*Adovidos, éu MeXirer oix., XVII, 11, 36, 43. 

’AOevaiar, XVII, 1, 29; XXIX, 8. 

Aiyetéos, XVII, m1, 24. 

Aiywata, IX, 9. Atywaio, VIII, 13, 37. 

Aioxives, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVII, 1, 88 (Havoxives), 
75 (Aicxivys); 11, 59. 

"AXeElo, &pxovTos, XXVIII, 26. 

’Adklarro, X, 1, 22. 

"Adomexebev, XI, 11, 21; XIV, 1, p. 882; XVII, 1, 66 
(-nbev); 11, 49. 

*"Adomexeot, VIIIA, 23, 26, 28; XIII, 1, 2; u, 5; 
XIV, 1, 3; XVI, 1, 6; XVII, 1, 15 (Hadozexéor), 
42, 50, 78, 86; 11, 6, 60; XXVII ('Adwze.), 5, 8. 

"Apewiddes, Ev Koider oix., XIV, 1, p. 384 (Hapevia- 
des); XVII, 1, 37 (Hapewiades), 74; mu, 57. 
Hayewiado, XIV, 1, 1; XVII, 1, 40, 76; 1, 58 
(’Ameviddo). “Apewidder, X, 1, 22, 24, 28, 32; 
11, 30. 

*Avaxetors, X XIX, 7. 

*"Avdpéar, €u MeXirer oix., XIII, 1, 9. 

Havpridoros, XVII, 1, 52, 89. 

"Avripaves, XX, 1, 6; XXIII, 5. 
peov, XVII, 1, 6. 

*AmrodXoddpor, XIII, 11, 29, 35. 
oix., XITT, 1, 12. 

*"Apecaixpo, “Aypudedev, XIII, 1, 64; XVII, 1, 28; 
11, 25. 

SAptOT ==, XK LL Af: 

*Aptorava, “ANwie., XXVII, 5. 

"Apxidoxos, “Aypudedev, apxiréexrov, XV, XVI, p. 
378; ’ApxiAdxor, XIII, 1, 56; XVII, u1, 9. 

"Axapvedbs, II, 3. ’Axapvet, XI, m1, 7, 20. 

*Axovorreifos, XIII, 1, 18; XIV, 1,5; XVII (Hayo- 
omelfos), 1, 44, 81. "Axovorreife, Eu MeNirer oik., 
X16: 


2 
, €k Kepa- 


, €u MeNire 


Bpoovvides, Keduorets, I, 1. 


Vepus, XIV51,.p..3045" XV11) 5.78; 91t, 55). Vepue, 
IX, 25; XI, 1m, 29. 
TAavxo, XVII, 1, 53, 89. 


Aelyayabo (?) Xovmeradv, X, 1, 34. 
Dip IL, 

Avoxdés, XXIII, 3. Avoxdéos, &pxovros, II, 5. 
Atovdes, Keduovets, II, 2. 


Avoves (Bods), X, 11, 43; XIV, 1, p. 882; XIV, 1, 9; 
XV, u, 3; XVII, 1, 37, 65; m, 49, 64. 

Avovuaddopos, éu MeXirer oix., XIII, 1, 46; Avovuco- 
dopor, XVII, 11, 18. 

Apopov, VB, 3. Apdpovos, X, ur, 40. 

Apwrténs, éu Medirne oix., XXVIII, 32. 


’"EXevowraxos, I, 1, 41; IV, Va, 24. “EXevowviaxo, 
IV, Va, 26; VIII, p. 326. 

"Emcyeves, I, 2 (?); Il, 5; XIV, 1, 6 (Hemyeves). 

Hemueixes, XVII, 1, 46, 82; m1, 62. 

"Epexfetdos, XX, I, 1. 

Hepxuebs, XIV, 1, p. 382; XVII, 1, 67; m1, 50. 

’Ereapxos, Kvéafevaceds, II, 3. 

Evaiveros, XI, u, 28. (?), ’Adozexéot oik., 
XIII, u, 5. Evauvero, ’AdowexéOev, XI, 11, 21. 
Hev’dixos, XVII, 1, 53, 90. Evdixor, “Aypudéor oik., 

Xe, 1, °20% 
Hetdoxaos, “AXorexéor oik., XVII, 1, 49, 86. 
Evdvdouos, €(v) De(waxdov) oix., XI, 1, 86. Evdu- 
dduor, Meduret, XI, 11, 22. 
Eixréuovos, apxovtos, XV, XVI, p. 378. 
Hevpedtées, €v ZkapBoviddv oix., XVII, 1, 72. 


Hepaxdeldes, “Oedev, XIII, 1, 48; XVII, 1, 20. 
HepaxXeldo, XI, m1, 9. 


Oapyedos, XIV, 1, p. 884; XVII, 1, 71; m1, 55. 

Ocodorar, “Axapvet, XI, m1, 7. 

Oevyeirov, Ilevpaveds, XIV, 1, 14; XVII, 1, 59; 11, 67. 

Oevyevns, Ilerpareds, XIV, 1, 9. Oevyéves, XVII, 1, 
54; 11, 64. 

Opacwvidn, Kexxvvet, XXVIII, 33. 

Ovexo (Boos), II, 1, 79; 1, 95; XVII, 1, 62. 


"Iacos, XX, 1, 1; XXIII, 8. Hiacos, Koddurets, 
SVIL4;-20; 
Hixapos, XIV, 1, p. 382; XVII, 1, 68; m1, 51. 


Kapiov, XIV, 1, p. 382; XVII, 1, 68; m, 51. 

Kexpomtoos, II, 6. 

Kexpomixa, XIII, 11, 24. 

Kexpozio, II, 1, 9; XIII, 1, 23. Kexporioz, II, 1, 
59, 63, 84. 

Kepapéov, XVII, t, 7. 

Képdov, XIII, 1, 18; XIV, 1, 3; XVII, 1, 43, 79; 
um, 61, 

Kerrio, XI, 111, 21. 

Keguovets, II, 2; X, 1, 22; XIV, 1, 10; XVII, 1, 2, 
10,17. Kedgroret, XXV, 5. 

Keguooyéves, Herpareds, XIV, 1, 10; XVII, 1, 55; 
1, 65. 

Keducoddopos, XIII, 1, 20. , & LKapPovcdoy oik., 
saat 1,12; XVII, 1, 57; 1, 67. Kedtooddpo, X, 
u, 18. 

Kexxuvet, XXVIII, 34. 


PROPER NAMES 655 


Kveov, VIIIs, 6; XVI, 1, 51, 87. 

Bee = (ey — —— olx.), VITA, 20: 

Tower, 4, 3%, 22, 25, 28,32; 11, 18, 30; XIV, 1, 
p..084; XVII, 1, 38, 75; 1, ie 

Koddvrets, XVII, 1, 20; XXIII, 

Kodduror, IX, 12, 16, 19, 21; XL m, 35, 37; XIII, 
t,~ i, 24, 33. 40: i, 10, ‘1B; XVI, ni 3: 1, 4; 
XVI, II, 75, tise. XXVIII, 30. 

Kopor, ‘a “Mere: olx., XI, m1, 19, 33. 

Kovon, XIII, 11, 28. 

Kpotoos, €v ZxauPov.ddv oix., XIII, 1, 18. Kpoicor, 
Pree, i, 8, 30; XI, 1, 851,419: 

Kréoov, Aaxidder, XI, 1m, 27. 

Kvéafevacets, II, 3. 

Kvdafevaio, X, 1, 388; XIII, 1, 17; XIV, 1, 11; 
VL, 2, 01} 1, 66. 


Aaxtades, XVII, 1, 62. Aaxrader, XI, m1, 27. 

Aadoooos, XXIII, 8. ——, ’Adomexebev, XIV, 1 
p. 382; XVII, 1, 66; 1, 49. Aadcco, XIV, 1, 
peose; AVII, 1, 67,68; n, 51. 

Aeovtidos, XIII, 1, 62. 

Avoavias, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVII, 1, 39, 76; uw, 58. 
Avoavia, éy Kvéabevaior oik., X, 11, 38. 

Avoiat, Kepuovet, X, 11, 22. 


Mappavo, XIII, 1, 31. 

Mavs, X, m1, 87. Mavidt, €v Kodduror oik., XIII, 
Pies ot. th: XVI, 1, 4; XVI, 1, 76. 

Mapaéonos, II, 7. 

Médo., éu Meira: oix., XIII, 1, 11, 26; 11, 30, 35. 

Medrte’s, XI, ut, 23. 

MeNire:, X, 1, 12, 16; XI, 1, 38; 11, 80; m1, 19, 22, 
bo, 40; XIII, 1, 10, 12, 138, 27, 47, 54; XIV, nu, 
12; XVII, 1, 4; 1, 3, 19, 37, 40, 44, 70; XIX, 
ae ett 2 A XVI, 2, 6,7, 185 XXVIII, 
32. 

Mixiom, IX, 27; XI, m, 30; XXI, 2. 
Koddvurox oix., XI, m1, 35. 
XI, m1, 21, 40. 

Mixov, XXIII, 4. 

Muvviov, Haypvdéor oix., XVII, 1, 11. Muvviwva, éu 
MeNirer oix., X XVII, 7. 


’ 

ei f 
2 , > 

, €u MeXirer oik., 


Neoe?, €u MeXire: olx., XVII, 1, 2, 70. 
Nixoorparos, XIV, 1, 14; XVII, 1, 59; un, 67; 

XXIII, 2. Nixoorparo, XVII, 1, 49, 85. 
Nixopaves, Mapadorvos, II, 7. 


’Oeev, XIII, 1, 48; XVII, 11, 20. 
Hovwvetdos, XIII, 1, 53. 

Ovéo.uos, XVII, 1, 48, 85 (Hovéoipos). 
Horpuvet, XVII, 11, 11. 


Tlavavebs, XIV, 1, p. 884; XVII, 1, 70, 71; 1, 53, 
54. aren, Villa, 31, 35, 40, 42; IX, 6. 

Ilavécovidos, XVII, 1, 25; XXIX, 4. 

Ilavdpoceor, XXVIII, 36. TaxSpocelo, IT 3, 45; 


m, 63, 70; Vita, 44°) Xt. 20: nf, 27, 41; XE 
In, 33. 

Tlapyeévov, XIV, 1, p. 382; XVII, 1, 67; 1, 50. 

Ilarpoxdov, ’AXwrrexijor oix., XXVII, 8. 

ed sR: 

Tletpacets, XIV. 1, 9,/10; XV, 31,1; XVI, 1, 55, 
56, 60; m1, 65, 68. 

Tlevredecxoi, II, 11, 95; TWevredexa, VIIA, 8, 32; 
IX, 9. 

Tlodvkdés, XX, 1, 5. ——, Aaxcades, XVII, 1, 62. 

IIpaxoias, XXIII, 6. » ( MeXizve oix., XIV, 
1, tas V IE. te 

IIpérov, ’Aypud€ou oix., XIII, 1, 19. 
AJIT, 1, 10, 25; rr, 29, 35. 

IIpoBadioio, X XIX, 5. 

IIpooromtaior, II, 1, 71. 

IIvpyiov., XIII, 1, 58; XVII, m1, 10. 


r 
I[pézovrt, 


Pawdior, éy Kodduror oix., IX, 12, 16, 19, 20; XI, m1, 
37; XIII, 1, 33, 40. 


Zavviov, XIV, 1, 6; XVII, 1, 45, 82; m1, 62. 
Zarvpas, és LkauPovrddv oix., XXVIII, 42. 
ZYedwdds, XI, 1, 27. 

Ye(uaxvdov), XI, 1, 36. 

Zupias, “Adozexéou oix., XIV, 1, 2; XVII, 1, 42, 78; 
11, 60. Zipio, XIV, 1, 4, 6,7; XVII, 1, 44, 45, 46, 
47, 80, 82, 83. Zier, VILIA, 23, 26, 28. 

Ziuov, ’Aypudéor oix., XVII, 1, 51, 88. Dipvor, 
VITA oye By ct beh Ly 

ZLivépov, XIV,1,4; XVII, 1, 48, 80; m,61. Zivdpor, 
ALL AS. 

Xicipor, Eu MeNire oix., XIII, 1, 53. 

ZKapPovidoy, X, 11, 19; XIII, 1, 8, 19; XIV, 1, 13; 
XVII, 1, 58; uu, 72, 73; XXVIII, 42 (2kapBo- 
vio@v). 

ZpixvOos, I, 2. 

Zoxdés, XIV, 1, 5; XVII, 1, 44, 81; m1, 62. 

ZoxdNos, Hadozrexéor oix., XVII, 1, 15. 

Zoueves, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVII, 1, 39, 76; u, 58. 

Zoo — — —, VIIIs, 39. 

Zocavdpos, XIV, 1, 7; XVII, 1, 47, 83; m1, 62. 

Loctar, “Adozexéor oix., XIII, 1, 2. 

Loorparo, éu Medire oix., XVII, 11, 40. 

Loredes, XVII, 11, 71. 

Zodias, XIII, 1, 21. 

Dr ———-, év KoNdurév oix., XVII, 11, 78. 

Ztparov, XXIII, 9. 


Tedxpos, év Kudafevaior oix., XIII, 1, 16; XIV, 1. 11; 
VI, 562 11,66. 

Tiwoxpares, XIV, 1, 1; XVII, 1, 40, 77; u, 59. 

Tiwouaxor, “Axapvet, XI, m, 20. 

Treoia, Kerriou, XI, ut, 21. 


Padaxpos, Taravet’s, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVII, 1, 70; 
11,53. Paddxpo, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVII, 1, 72, 73; 
1, 55. Padaxpo, VIIa, 31, 35, 40, 42; IX, 5. 


656 | _ INDICES 


Pavoxdel, &y Koiher oix., X, 0, 17. 

Pavocrparos, VB, 5; XI, 1, 27. 

Pirtos, €v TkauPorrddv oix., XVII, 1, 73. 

Pirirro, UpoBadicio, XXIX, 5. 

Piroxdés, II, 3 (Axapvebs, apxitéxrov); PidoKNéos, 
IX, 23; XI; 1m, 8, 

Pirov, Hepxue’s, XIV, 1, p. 382; XVII, 1, 66; m, 50. 

Pidopyos, XIV, 3, p. 384; XVII, 1, 72. 

Piddotpatos, Iavanevs, XIV, 1, p. 384; XVI, 1, 
103 00r, 4: 

Pdia, XXVII, 15. 

Ppadyova, XXVII, 1. 


Dupduaxos, Kediovebs, XIV, wu, 9; XVII, 1 
9, 17. = 
Xapiddes, “Aypudebev, II, 2. 
Xovmerady, X, m1, 38. Xovreradn, X, 1 


———-— va Apdpoves, X, m1, 40. 
———-— os, apxerexrov, I, 4. 
——-— xpot & Ko- oi., VIIa, 20. 
———v éu Med. oix., XI, 1, 38. 
= 50; honk) XVIII. 
——-—ot oikévra, XXVII, 4. 


a&Barov, 491. 


GREEK WORDS 657 


Ill. GREEK WORDS 


"EXevowviakos (diBos), 181, 301. 


aiyadpua (apxatov), 298, 310, 311, 433, 454, 456, édAouTrov, 359. 
457, 460, 466, 467, 488, 492... (dp8ov), 434. éumirpnut, 460. 


ayaduatorotkov, 373. 

adutov, 436, 437, 438. 

’"AOnvaia » “A@nvay pedeotoa, 461. 
Alywatos (AiOos), 181, 350. 
aiertatos, 317, 319, 360. 

axavOa, 364, 409. 

axataéeotos, 130, 199, 309, 344. 
axtitys (Aifos), 181, 350. 
avabupovr, 316. 

avakeoartt, 356. 

avdeuov, 203. 

avTiOnuata, 28, 343, 345, 346. + 


avrTivopos, 302, 307, 308, 315, 319, 351. 


apapdwra, 309. 

apya, 316. 

apuos, 305, 315. 

apoupatos (AiGos), 343, 350. 
aprapety, 441. 


évoov, 486, 487. 

évndvovov, 491. 

évtos (rotxos 6), 310, 311. 
eEwhev, 309, 311. 
érepyacecba, 344. 

érepyacia, 184, 200, 342, 344, 345, 347, 352 
évéteva, 473. 

émiBrAnres, 368. 

émixomn, 344. 

emuxomTe, 344. 

émixpavitis, 301, 302, 303. 
émtoa, 344. 

érraTatat, 299, 300, 449, 454. 
értotuAca, 301, 302. 

éropodia, 368. 

épyacia (Aeia), 316. 

épyov (€ANouTOV), 359. 
’"EpexGevov, 452, 4838. 


apxatos, 434, 435, 445, 456, 460, 463, 466. See ’"Epex6éos vnds, 436, 438. 


also G@yaXua. 
apxaorns, 463, 466. 
aoridta, 469. 
adomioxioy, 469. 
aotnp, 409. 
acTpayados, 316, 366. 
atpeta, 316. 


Bwpos, 318, 344, 440, 441, 534. 


yaoTnp, 321. 
ynyeveos, 436. 
yoyyvAos, 302, 310, 366. 
ypadev, 368. 
ypadels, 368. 
yoviata, 303. 


dé (in Pausanias), 488. 
Ojos, 432. 

dvaBnrns, 344. 
dvappvbyicart, 356. 


durdovv (oiknua), 482, 486, 489, 491. 


dwwBeria, 453. 
dokides, 368. 


évykaiev, 368. 

éykauT7s, 368. 

é6os, 414, 433, 434. 

édpar, 305. 

‘Exatourredov, 442, 443, 444, 451. 
éxatoutedos (vews), 443, 468, 473. 
éxtroveoavT., 359. 

éxTos, 312. 


épua, 414. 

éo@, 311. 

éaddov, 483, 489. 
éréOn, 301. 


Curyos, 317, 305. 
(oa, 298. 


nrvavov, 491. 
nulepya, 300, 301, 308, 315. 


Oaraoca, 312, 313, 456, 543, 573. 
Géots, 342, 344, 345, 347, 359. 
@unkoos, 318. 

6unxéos, 318, 490. 

Ovpa, 468. 

Oipac (Alvar), 311, 317. 


iepa, 467, 468, 472, 494, 508. 

iepov, 1382, 435, 457, 572. 

iuavtes, 76, 314, 353, 355, 363, 368, 369, 370. 
ipov, 435, 486, 487, 442. 

iotiov, 414. 

iotds, 414. 


Kkayyedapia, 520, 521, 522. 

KaykeAAadpa, 520. 

KayKeddos, 520. 

Kadvpmata, 299, 353, 362, 364, 366, 368, 369, 409. 
Kardxn, 314, 364, 409. 

kapmbAn (ceris), 363, 364, 408. 

Kkautbdos, 319. 

Kavndopa, 589. 


658 INDICES 


kavov, 344. 

Kkaratoun, 316, 366. 

Kewevav, 308. 

Kexpomuov, 440, 442, 445. 

kepaia, 414. 

Kepkotatot, 359, 360, 361, 362. 
KiBwros, 474. 

KiBwria, 474. 

Kiokpavoy, 302, 303, 304, 306. 
KAtwakls, 353, 365, 366, 409. 

Kopn, Kopat, 3, 111, 112, 232. 
Kopupatov, 359. 

Kopudatos, 319, 355, 359, 360, 361, 362. 
Kpntis, 309. 

kplvov, 409. 

KuMé, 469. 

xuuatiov, 230, 316, 362, 366, 409. 


Nela (Epyacia), 316. 
NOwar (Pbpac), 311, 317. 
NiGos, 181, 300, 301, 302, 310, 317, 343, 350, 366. 


maxpos (Kavwr), 344. 

paptipia, 424, 436, 443, 444, 445, 486. 

pacxaAn, 304. 

pacxartaia, 174, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 
308. 

paxapa (irmxn), 469. 

peyapov, 4338, 4386, 437, 438. 

uedAas (Aidos), 317. 

perakh (trav EdNwy), 350. 

petwrov, 114, 175, 301, 304, 305, 306. 

unKos, 302. 

bidtos, 344. 

pucbGoar, 280. 


vaos (ris Toduados), 488. 

veavioxov, 241. 

vews, 280, 440, 441, 442, 448, 444, 445... . 
(apxatos), 484, 435, 488, 449, 450, 451, 452, 
457, 460, 462, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 
474, 475, 476, 478, 488. . . . (madatds), 416. 
. . « (ris Tlodrados), 435. 

vnos, 436, 438. 


pa@rov, 521. 


tidy, 468, 469. 
Ecpouaxarpa, 468, 469. 
EvAov, 350, 366. 


oiknua, 443, 445, 446, 451, 471, 482, 483, 486 
489, 491. 

oixoupés (dus), 491. 

bvOos, 440. 

ovvé, 366. 

omatov, 409. 

omy, 305. 

dmiabddouos, 438, 468, 471, 472, 473. 


> 


dpbdv (ayadua), 434. 
opboorata., 309. 
opodes, 368. 

ovpety, 440, 444. 
OS, ol 72 

ddus, 491. 

oxeTos, 356, 422. 


qats, 241. 

maXaos, 416, 460, 463, 466. 

Ilavépdceov, 119. 

Tapacknvia, 470. 

mapaotas, 310, 312, 314, 468, 469, 470. 

IlapGevGvos, 468, 472, 473. 

matpia, 450. 

maxos, 302. 

méedXavos, 484, 490, 491. 

meupata, 490. 

meplaotacis, 470. 

jmeptTovaov, 365. 

mwéTpa, 487. 

tratovov, 353, 365, 366, 409. 

mAaTtos, 302, 349. 

tAtvOos, tALWOis, 48, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 308, 
309. 

jmouiAn, 521. 

move, 450, 451, 471. 

tougddodvyes, 353, 364, 368, 409. 

mpodouos, 471. 

mpoerikoTTev, 344. 

mpotvAaqoy, 312. 

qmpotvdov, 312, 440, 441, 442. 

tpooknviov, 470. 

mpoaoTtas, mpoatacts, 470. 

I[pocromatoy, 310, 312, 313. 

Tpootouoyv, 170, 312, 313, 487, 491. 

mvAn (tepa), 494, 508. 

mapwwos (rides), 350. 

ma@pos, 181. 


paBdwors, 309. 
pupos, 354, 355. 


LeBaoros, 479. 

ceNis, 353, 363, 364, 365, 368, 408. 
céd\ua, 365. 

oeua, 414. 

onkos, 436, 440, 445. 
onmetov (tpratvys), 475. 
oxevn, 449. 

oxnvn, 470. 

oretpa, 309. 

aToas (amo THs), 316, 317. 
Lrouatoy, 313. 

oTomov, 312, 458. 
oTpa@ua, 365. 

oTpwrnpes, 368. 

ovvépyo.s, 354. 


ouvvexns, 488, 489, 534. 
ovviotapevol, 280. 

aivvao, 459, 478. 

opykioxos, 314, 353, 366, 368, 369. 


oxjua (rpralyns), 105, 486, 487, 491. 


Tapevey, 472. 

totxos, 309, 310, 311. 

Toual, 354. 

tpratyns, 105, 475, 486, 487, 491. 


brepOupov, 317, 318. 
baeprovaov, 468, 469, 470. 
vrepgov, 486. 

breratos, 359. 


GREEK WORDS 


trnpxe, 521, 522. 
troupyol, 241. 
dos, 302, 348, 349. 


patvn, 468, 469, 470. 
garda, 468, 469, 470. 
guaduov, 469. 

dpéap, 487. 


xarkn, xarAx7n, 409. 

Xapat (€ulepya), 300, 301, 308, 315, 317. 
xaoua, 313, 458. 

xphnuatra (tepa), 467, 472. 

xXpvooxoos, 318. 


659 


660 INDICES 


IV. GREEK AND LATIN AUTHORS AND INSCRIPTIONS 


A. AUTHORS 


Aeschylus, Suppliants (3), 312; Choephori (92), 490. 
Ambrose, De lapsu virg. consecr. (VI, 24), 505. 
Antiphon (VI, 39), 445. 

Apollodorus (III, 178), 169, 436, 491. 

Aristophanes, Clouds (773, Schol.), 535; Knights 
(969), 647; Lysistrata (278, Schol.), 484, 449; 
Plutus (1198), 473. 

Aristotle, Ath. Pol. (29), 648. 

Arnobius, Adv. nat. (VI, 6), 132. 

Athenaeus (VI, 241le), 232; (XV, 682a, 684c), 409. 


Chrysostom, Homil.in S. Matth. (LX XIII (LXXIV) 
3 ad fin.), 505. 

Cicero, De. Nat. Deor. (III, 49), 478. 

Clement Alex., Protrepticus (III, 45), 132. 

Constitutiones Apostolicae (II, 57, 2 ff.), 505. 


Demosthenes (XXIV, 136), 462. 

Diodorus (XII, 39), 464. 

Dionysius Halic., De Din. (13), 150, 474; Ant. Rom. 
Exc. (XIV, 2), 436. 

Dioskorides (IV, 58), 409. 


Etymologicum Magnum, omvcbddopos, 471. 

Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris (1159), 314, 470; 
Phoenissae (415), 314. 

Eustathius (1041, 27), 365; (Ad. Hom. Od., I, 356), 
435. 


Harpocration, ’A7éAnéts, 648; oraciwrns, 648. 

Herodotus (I, 47), 487; (V, 71), 483; (V, 72), 485; 
(V, 77), 435, 471; (V, 82), 487; (VII, 140, 141), 
437; (VIII, 41), 485; (VIII, 53), 434, 436, 447; 
(VIII, 55), 486, 440; (IX, 138), 447. 

Hesychius, ao77 éXaia, 425; ‘Exarouredos vews, 444; 
Kadxn, 409; Kivduvos, 365; oixupdyv div, 435, 478; 
dvOos, 440; arayxudos, 425; cedides, 365. 

Homer, Iliad (II, 546-551), 432, 433; Odyssey (II, 
394; VI, 13), 482; (VII, 80-81), 431. 


Leo Allatius, Tractatus de Templis Graecorum, Epist, 
(I, 21), 505. 

Liber Pontificalis (Duchesne, I, 262; II, 61, 80), 505. 

Lysias (I, 9), 486. 


Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii (11), 505. 

Pausanias (I, 24, 7), 492; (I, 26, 4), 480; (1, 26, 5), 
166, 169, 313, 436, 452; (1, 26, 5-27, 2), 480-482; 
(I, 27, 2), 119; (I, 27, 3), 235; (II, 10, 2), 486; 
(II, 17, 5), 484; (II, 17, 7), 465; (IL) 25) 1)p 486; 
(III, 10, 7), 232; (IIT, 15, 10), 486551 VSG 
232; (V, 10, 9), 472; (V, 11, 8) 250 V enon 
472; (VI, 20, 3), 486; (VIII, 2, 3), 484; (VIII, 
9, 1), 486; (X, 19, 4), 416. 

Philochorus (Fragment 146), 150, 486, 474. 

Plato, Laws (VI, p. 782c), 490. 

Pliny, V. H. XXXIV, 80), 415; (XXXVI, 23), 232. 

Plutarch (Antonius, 60), 480; (Demetrius, 23), 472; 
(Numa, 9), 476; (Pericles, 6), 465; (Pericles, 12, 
14, 31), 464; (Solon, 12), 483; (Sulla, 13), 476; 
(Themistocles, 10), 461; (Sympos. Quaest., IX, 6), 
478; Vitae X Orat. (p. 848E), 452, 478. 

Pollux (I, 6), 471; (1, 88, 92), 365; (I, 90), 312; 
(V, 91), 440. 


Strabo (IX, 16, C396), 475. 

Suidas, 6v0es, 440; araphevor, 535. 

Symphorius Amalarius, De Ecclesiasticis Offictis (III, 
2), 505. 


Testamentum Domini (I, 19), 505. 

Theodoret, Graec. affect. cur. (VIII, 30), 132. 
Thucydides (I, 126), 433. 

Timaeus, Lexicon vocum Platonicarum, wédavor, 490. 


Vitruvius (I, 1, 5), 232; (III, 2, 1), 314; (il 475; 
IV, 5, 9), 938; (IV, 8, 4), 3, 476. 


Xenophon, Hellenica (I, 6, 1), 460; (II, 3, 20), 445. 


GREEK AND LATIN AUTHORS AND INSCRIPTIONS 


B. Inscrietions 


References to the inscriptions of the Erechtheum (I—X XIX) are omitted. 


PAGE 


IG. 

MARE Ye 6 My, 2 450 
BAS ao eras 497 

32 (12, 91, 92) 455, 463, 471 
Motle SO) a a . 4s 440f 
Peneths. 200). ook. ous 309 
HONS O55)... 300 
Pei? 306) «ss... 472 
Bian, O24)... 4 .-. 412 
304 (72,348). .... 299 

314, 315 (12, 363, 366) . 29 
I, Suppl. 18, 19 (12?,3,4) 438 f. 
2h (GE ae (0) 465 
225c¢ (12, 313, 314) 350 
288a (L?, 336) 350 
SS 461 
1 ee 299 
Re ee 648 
IES Rar. 3 a 3 449 
eS ae 298, 454 
ES Se 647 
eee EE SA. 649 
OG eee reer 581 
318, 314 317, 449, 472 
02) SS 581 
SC 2 647 
SS en a 304 
0” 2: a ee 346 
i oe: ae 467 
CAS, ile ae ae 581 
WD. eae eae 281 

iG. 

II, 74 UT’, 216) 467 
163 (II?, 8384) . . . . 466 


167 (II?, 463) 300, 305, 368 


464 (112,983)... . 466 
ae 467 
2 467, 473 
tes Sak 467, 473 
ee ee 467 
677, 679 467, 468 
Beg ts el: 473 
i arm 467 
PRTC fs 473 
733, 735 467, 468 
-) 5S eee 434, 467 
ote 467 
“oy eee 314, 467 
2 ee ae eae 581 
Sete 497 
1054 305, 344, 359, 368 
Dee ee 610 
Peg ns Ie 300 
fasta. 3 re 484 
(8) See eases es 491 


PAGE 


II, 5, 746 (12, 217) 467 
ee 132 
GAOU A @ axl Beaten 473 
653 473 
Of oes ir gee 467 
(ees ae 473 
SAGE on 6 Sead wi 305 
8346 348, 350 
946b eh!) 
1054b 344, 350 
(er ee. eee 344 
LOBOOP OC? 2 Gaps 484 
ge: 
LIT, 59 513 
Gia Res Oe ROR ears, 479 
J ee ages = ee 318, 490 
NOY Van = iets 288 
BU cern erste 484 
Boaz DOs os Seen k >. oe 610 
Boe hae Oa eee Take 604: 
1276 132, 133, 479 
{hay 1b0d a 604 
EG: 
LV 823i ane tore 343 
PGi aes 344, 409 
ek ene oe 344, 365 
NLT aU fake. ic tean 344, 356 
ALDD icon agers: 305 
Site tr Ab gad 
Hees Pie 
XXVII, 1923, p. 314 454 
"AOnva 
Tia S00 e021 ee eee 438 
Ath. Mitt. 
XV, 1890, p. 259, No. 12. 470 
XXXI, 1906, p. 134 344 
XXXII, 1908, pp. 17 ff.. 467 
LIV 31019) Dee eee Ak 
Be Grin 
XII, 1888, p. 153 461 
XIV, 1890, p. 395 : 409 
XX, 1806, p. 3245 2 = 305 
XXII, 1898, p. 304. . . 365 
XXIX, 1905, p. 460 , 321,365 
Br. Mus., Gr. Inscr. 
Teer ee ene 450 
Clie G: 
TPS50; O10 Ge Bern a 610 
Tete a a 461 


2672, 2675, 2677 2692 314 


661 
PAGE 
Cavaignac, Trésor d’ Eleusis 
Tees ie oe OP agers Ree 317 
Dittenberger, Orientis Graect 
Inscriptiones Selectae 
LAS Sea Sauces eas 4d 314 
Dittenberger, Sylloge* 
OB aoe ee ie, Le ile: 305 
bs SEE or Nee eae 470 
GT GA ar See 354, 356 
Dittenberger, Sylloge* 
UP Sa Te eee tee 450 
"Ed. ’Apx. 
1850, No. 1958. 513 
$659, No. S041 52. ja 4 518 


1859, Nos. 3712, 3715, 3722, 

3723, 3728 
(9004004 ees ee, 305 
1903, pp. 141 ff. 462, 467, 468 


Gott. gel. Anz. 


S008 POS LUZ0 a Lee Myo e 450 
Hermes 

XVII, 1882, p. 4 . 344 
Hondius, Novae inscriptiones 

atticae 

IN en] Sheree Poder aes ie 467, 468 

IN eA oe it 467 

Dh Wei ee ene 461 
Inschriften von Priene 

Lo tee is at ee dda ah oe 314 
Mnemosyne 


1904, pp. 325 ff. . 462, 467, 468 


Revue de Philologie 


XXIX, 1905, p. 258 312 
Roberts-Gardner, Greek 
Epigraphy 
AL None te pe ee 450 
Sitzb. Berl. Akad. 
1929, geet O laa te 454 
Von Prott et Ziehen, Leges 
graecorum sacrae 
Tie NG. ee SS 438 
Noes ar aes 450 


662 INDICES 


V. GENERAL INDEX 


Acamantis, 648. 

Acciaiuoli, 520. 

Accounts: — Of 409/8 B.c., 277, 307; arrangement, 
322-323: date, 323; bibliography, 324-327; text 
and translation, 326-348. — Of 408/7 B.c., 240, 
277, 300; arrangement, 371-374; date, 371; biblio- 
graphy, 374-379; text and translation, 378-403; 
summary, 404-408. — Later than 408/7 B.c., 278, 
648-650; arrangement, 416; dates, 416, 460, 461; 
bibliography, 416-419; text and translation, 418- 
421. 

Achilles, 480. 

Acropolis, archaic female statues, 234, 235, 573; 
Latin (Frankish), 519, 520; north wall, 16-18, 
426, 427, 428; sacked by Persians, 435, 436, 447; 
restored, 448-449; south wall, 480; treasury on, 
450, 451, 452; Turkish, 523, 536, 557, 559, 560; 
Venetian, 526, 527, 532, 533; modern excavations, 
560, 573. 

Acropolis Limestone, 18-14, 138, 139, 140, 141. 

Acroteria, Main Building, 80; North Portico, 97; 
Porch of the Maidens, 115. 

Ad humeros, 3, 477. 

Aedicula, for ancient statue, 363, 364, 470. 

Aegeis, 371. 

Aegina, quarries, 350. 

Aeginetan Limestone, backers of frieze, 181, 316, 
343, 346, 347, 349, 350, 352, 354. 

Agathanor, sculptor, 414. 

Agoracritus, sculptor, 234, 238. 

Agraulus, in frieze, 256. 

Agryle, 649. 

Aisle Walls, in church, 156, 494, 501, 502, 503, 504; 
breach in north wall, 499, 502, 569; fragments 
from Erechtheum in, 38, 45, 53, 54, 79, 240; poros 
in, 8, 144, 494, 499. 

Aisles, in church, 494, 499, 515, 571; excavated, 499, 
501, 566, 569, 580; graves in, 499, 501, 566; 
separated from nave, 504-508; in Hecatompedon, 
470. 

Alcamenes, 238, 276, 454. 

Alcibiades, 453. 

Alexias, archon, 278, 416, 461. 

Altar, of Athena, 348, 346, 483, 434, 440, 441, 442, 
443, 444, 460; of Athena Hygieia, 109, 318; in 
church, 494, 508, 513, 569; of Dione, 348, 412, 440, 
460, 484; in interior (Poseidon-Erechtheus, Heph- 
aestus, Butes), 166, 459, 483, 484, 486, 489, 491; 
in North Portico, 107, 109, 318, 490; of the Thye- 
choiis, 105, 107, 314, 318, 348, 484, 490; of Zeus 
Herceus, 425, 440, 475; of Zeus Hypatos, 318, 440, 
483, 484, 489, 490-491. 

Alterations, Christian (mediaeval), 6, 8, 13, 30, 36, 
59, 97, 98, 103, 104, 119, 1388, 140, 156, 179, 493- 
501, 516, 517, 522, 523; Turkish, 13, 36, 54, 70-72, 


97, 104, 105, 178, 179, 523-528. See also Church, 
House, Powder Magazine. 

American School at Athens, 272, 499, 506, 580-581. 

Amida, St. Cosmas, 512. 

Amynandridae, catalogue of, 132, 133, 479. 

Anathyrosis, 145, 184, 316. 

Anaxicrates, archon, 474. 

Andreoli, sculptor, 567, 578, 579. 

Androtion, 462. 

Antae, East Portico, 30-32, 54, 185, 194, 201, 219, 
526, 527, 5538, 554, 561, 564, 579; North Portico, 
82, 86, 109, 120, 186, 201, 214, 219, 2238, 459, 525, 
526, 527, 540; Porch of the Maidens, 110, 112-118, 
189, 203, 219, 527, 540; West Facade, 51, 61-62, 
69, 130, 172, 174, 175, 176, 178, 188, 193, 200, 201, 
217, 219, 302, 303, 527, 558, 647. 

Antefixes, 79, 97. 

Anthemion, 68, 82, 101, 130, 217, 308; jointing, 205, 
206; plane of relief, 206; varieties of, 203-205. 

Antiphon, 445, 648. 

Antithemata, 28, 345, 349, 350, 351, 354. See also 
Backers. 

Antony, 479. 

Aphrodite, in frieze, 262; in the Gardens, 235, 492; 
Morpho, 486. 

Apolexis, 648. 

Apollo, in frieze, 263; oracle, 450. See also Temple. 

Apollodorus, 476. 

Apse, 8, 30, 52, 53, 144, 493, 494, 517, 561, 571, 602. 

Arabe, L’, shipment by, 594-595, 612. 

Archidamian War, 451, 581, 648. 

Archilochus, architect, 300. 

Architrave, see Epistyle. 

Areios, archon, 479. 

Ares, 486. 

Aresaichmos, of Agryle, 649. 

Argos, 486. See also Heraeum. 

Aristogeiton, in frieze, 260. 

Ariston, 476. 

Aristophanes, 474. 

Arliano (near Lucca), church, 505. 

Armenia, hall churches in, 518. 

Arrephori, 235, 430, 492, 532, 537, 606. 

Arsenal of Philon, Piraeus, 305, 344, 368. 

Artemis Brauronia, 314, 434, 437, 451, 464, 466, 467. 
474, 521, 522. 

Artemis Leucophryene, 480. 

Ashmole, B., 270. 

Asia Minor, hall churches in, 518. 

Aspirate, use in inscriptions of Erechtheum, 346. 

Assos, stoa at, 65. 

Athena, 434, 472, 487; in Erechtheum, 456-458, 459, 
478, 492; and Erechtheus, 432, 433, 436, 487, 444, 
445, 446, 456, 457, 476. See also Olive (sacred), 
Statue (ancient), Temple. 


GENERAL INDEX 663 


Athena Hygieia, altar, 109, 318. 
ae Nike, statue, 467. See also Temple of Athena 
ike. 

Athena Polias, 298, 437, 450. See also Temple of 
Athena Polias. 

Athens, walls of, 300, 368; church on Lycabettus, 
508; church of St. Dionysius, 457. 

Attalus, 480; stoa of, 65. 

Augustus, 479. 

Auxesia, 437. 


Backers (Backing stones), Foundations, 5, 6, 10, 
122; Frieze, 24, 28, 91, 315, 316, 343, 345, 346, 
347, 349, 352; of Aeginetan stone, 181, 346, 350, 
352, 354; in south wall, 48; of Tympanum, 26-27, 
74, 76, 315, 316, 359, 360, 361. 

Bailey, I. W., 226-227. 

Balanos, N. M., 89, 575-579. 

Ballu, T., 566, 567. 

Bannier, 323. 

Baptistery, 496. 

Barrier, between nave and aisles, 504-508. 

Base, of Antae, 31, 61, 86, 112, 113, 130, 185, 561; of 
Columns, 19, 60, 61, 82, 185, 560; of Poros, 427- 
428; in church, 497-499, 503. See also Antae, Col- 
umns. 

Basevi, G., 528, 549, 554. 

Basilica, 494, 515-516, 522. 

Batter, see Inclination. 

Beams, marble, in ceiling, 27, 28, 29, 87, 101, 102, 
184, 186, 192, 198, 224, 533, 576, 646; wooden, see 
Ceiling, Transverse Beam, Roof. 

Beam Cuttings, 101, 178, 524-527. 

Bench, in church, 504, 507, 508; in north central 
room, 159; in Propylaea, 159; in west room (Pro- 
stomiaion), 56, 103, 162, 163, 164, 165-166, 167, 
168; ‘‘Bent Beam,” 363-364, 408. 

Berlin Museum, 231, 238, 262, 267, 268, 272. 

Beulé, C. E., 100, 101, 235; Gate, 72, 522. 

Bisani, A., 610. 

Blaquiere, E., 227, 557. 

Blegen, C. W., 247, 248, 258, 262, 266, 270, 271, 272, 
276, 581. 

Blocks, re-used, 10, 12, 123, 151, 575. 

Boat, bronze lamp in form of, 572. 

Boeckh, A., 280, 301, 302, 304, 317. 

Botticher, C., 38, 45, 105, 110, 123, 124, 137, 220, 
231, 486, 499, 501, 503, 513-514, 524, 562, 569, 
570-572, 573, 574, 575, 580. 

Borrmann, R., 151, 514. 

Bosses, 56, 98, 109, 130, 152, 166, 173, 189, 199, 200. 

Boston, ‘‘South Church,” 466. 

Braakel, frigate, 553. 

Bracebridge, C. H., 229. 

Bramsen, J., 598. 

Brauchitsch, G. von, 433. 

Brea, decree concerning, 497. 

Breton, E., 508, 520. 


Brick, pavement in church, 513; used by Pittakis, 
48, 562, 564, 578, 580. 

British Museum, Fragments from Erechtheum in; — 
Capital of Anta, 31, 208, 228, 538, 579; Caryatid, 
112, 235; Column, 207, 217; Coffer, 89, 189; 
Cornice, 75; Epicranitis, 50, 52, 113, 210, 213, 222, 
228; Epistyle, 23, 28, 53, 54, 350; Window linings, 
38. — Inscriptions, 279, 283, 450. — Ionic Capital 
from Ephesus, 22. 

Bronze, East Door, 44, 317, 469; North Door, 102, 
231; North Portico, 82, 84, 89, 222, 230; Pins, 41, 
82, 84, 211, 214; Pipe in Pandroseum, 123; Oxydi- 
zation, 35. 

Brune, La, shipment by, 594, 611. 

Buchon, J., 519. 

Bithlmann, 112, 115. 

Bulle, 443. 

Burnouf, Emile, 519. 

Buschor, 430, 440, 443, 445. 

Butadae, see Paintings. 

Butes, 459, 478, 484. 

Byron, 552, 553. 


Calamis, 415, 416. 

Calathus, 233, 234. 

Calleas, archon, 463. 

Callias, archon, 416, 461, 649. 

Callias, decree of, 455, 456, 463, 471, 472, 473. 

Callias, dedicant, 480. 

Callimachus, sculptor, 416, 488. 

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, 265, 266, 276, 502. 

Cantilever, 14, 362. 

Capital, East Portico, Antae, 31, 54, 208, 553, 579; 
East Portico, Columns, 20-23, 183, 185, 189, 201, 
207, 208, 577; North Portico, Columns, 82-86, 222, 
227, 521, 533, 541, 563; Porch of the Maidens, 
Antae, 113, 219, 558, 565, 567; Porch of the 
Maidens, caryatids, 112, 196, 234, 565, 568; West 
Fagade, Antae, 51, 61-62, 176, 201, 302, 303, 558; 
West Facade, Columns, 68, 189, 304, 570; of meto- 
pon, 175, 302, 303, 304, 306; of pilasters under 
transverse beam, 647; of columns in church, 503. 

Capuchins, 536; convent of, 611. 

Carpathos, inscription from, 461. 

Caryatids: — Erechtheum, 3, 111-112, 183, 185, 
186, 195, 196, 206, 211, 232-238; in seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries, 530, 531, 533, 534, 535, 
537, 541, 550; taken by Lord Elgin, 553, 597, 598; 
casts of, 551, 553, 568, 578, 580, 610, 611, 612; 
damaged in 1826, 558, 560; repaired, 565, 567, 568, 
578, 579, 580; enchantment, 598. — Outside of 
Athens, 233, 234, 531. See also Charites, Porch of 
the Maidens. 

Cassas, L.-F., 85, 217, 550, 609, 610. 

Casts, 38, 233, 266, 551, 553, 568, 578, 580, 610, 611, 
612. 

Castellazzi, G., 100. 

Cavvadias, P., 365. 


664 INDICES 


Cecropis, 132. 

Cecropium, 66, 113, 127-137, 169, 172, 174, 199, 301, 
307, 426, 429, 431, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 460, 
464, 474, 488, 489; inscription from, 132, 133, 134, 
north boundary, 134-136; south boundary wall, 
132-134. See also Southwest Corner. 

Cecrops, 433, 467, 484, 491; cult of, 134; daughters 
of, 244; priest of, 132, 133; temenos of, 426, 446; 
tomb of, 132, 136, 362. 

Ceiling: — marble, East Portico, 27-30, 222, 347, 
349, 364; North Portico, 87-89, 186, 222, 227; 
opening in, 89-91; ornaments, 89, 364, 409. — 
Wooden, East Cella, 320, 351-352, 354, 355, 363, 
364-368; West Rooms, 154, 156, 167, 169, 350, 
351, 363, 364, 408, 409; in Niche, 178. 

Cement, 112, 196, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213; analysis, 
225-226; modern, 578. 

Central Rooms, 156-159, 179, 311, 313, 458, 486, 487, 
490, 491, 543. 

Cephisodotus, 238; the younger, 478. 

Chalcotheca, 455, 468, 473, 484. 

Chandler, 277, 281, 283, 483, 543, 544, 590-591, 606, 
607. 

Chandler Inscription, see Report of 409 B.c. 

Chapel, of ducal palace, 520. 

Charites, in frieze, 262; of Socrates, 531, 535. 

Charlemont, Lord, 538. 

Chartres, painting at, 530. 

Cherchel, caryatid from, 233, 234. 

Chisel, 182-184. 

Choiseul-Gouffier, Comte de, 85, 217, 498, 502, 544, 
545, 546, 550, 609, 610, 611, 612. 

Choisy, A., 304, 317, 344. 

Chrysostom, 505. 

Church, 6, 8, 30, 38, 59, 98, 103, 119, 137, 138, 140, 
144, 146, 150, 493-514; arrangement, 494; crude 
construction, 511; dedication, 518-519; entrances 
to nave, 494, 496-499; excavations in, 497, 499, 
501, 513, 516, 527, 545, 566, 569-570, 571-572, 
580; exterior, 493; fragments of Erechtheum in, 
38, 45, 52, 53, 54, 79, 240, 272, 502, 572, 580; hall 
type, 517, 518; restoration (conjectural), 515-516. 
See also Aisles, Aisle Walls, Apse, Column, Dia- 
conicum, Graves, Iconostasis, Pier, Prothesis, 
Roof, Windows. 

Cimon, 448. 

Ciriaco of Ancona, 520. 

Cistern, east of North Portico, 105, 524; under West 
Room, 18, 14, 15, 128, 142, 161, 169-171, 492, 516; 
cleared, 566, 570, 572, 573, 578; date, 169, 170, 496, 
523. See also Crypt, “Sea,” Vault. 

Civitaé Vecchia, 466. 

Clamps, 15, 18, 69, 73, 114, 116, 117, 196-199, 344; 
Roman, 199; special forms, 48, 98, 99, 125, 198- 
199, 425. 

Clarke, E. D., 85, 502, 548, 548, 596-597, 613. 

Clarke, J. T., 191. 

Clarke, W., 225. 


Clay, on roofs, 368. 

Cleisthenes, 435. 

Cleisthenian, 449. 

Cleomenes, 435, 437, 438, 449. 

Cleophon, 453. 

Cnidus, 461, 462. 

Cockerell, C. R., 555; 5. C., 266. 

Coffers: — Marble, East Portico, 29-30, 222, 364, 
366; North Portico, 87-89, 189, 222, 224, 364, 409, 
576; Porch of the Maidens, 115-116, 168, 206, 213, 
222, 364. — Wooden, East Cella, 354, 363, 364, 
365, 366, 368; West Rooms, 169, 364, 408, 409. 

Cole, W., 527, 557, 558, 559. 

Collignon, M., 127, 259, 433, 472. 

Colophonians, decree concerning, 461. 

Color, 84, 85, 86, 89, 116, 220-222; reports of traces, 
227-231. Sce also Glass Beads, Painting. 

Column, East Portico, 18-23, 54, 183, 185, 189, 196, 
201, 217, 344, 346, 411-413, 534, 553, 577; North 
Portico, 80-82, 183, 184, 186, 196, 217, 477, 526, 
558, 559, 560, 563, 576; West Fagade, 62, 66-68, 
186, 189, 201, 304, 308, 539, 558, 563, 564, 570, 
572, 577; Interior (?), 351; Fluting, 206, 309, 411— 
413; in church, 502-503, 504, 508, 610, 611, 612. 
See also Bases, Capital, Entasis, Inclination, 
Volute. 

Commission of 409 B.c., 181, 298, 299, 311, 313, 352, 
452. See also Report of 409 B.c. 

Commission of 1852, 499, 501, 518, 516, 527, 569- 
570, 571; 573. 

Committee on traces of color, R.I.B.A., 228-229. 

Concrete, foundations in aisles of church, 138, 139, 
140, 516-517; vault in North Portico, 555. 

Conon, 461, 462. 

Consoles, 356; East Windows, 41, 42, 44, 317; North 
Door, 41, 99, 100, 101, 102, 189, 224, 555. 

Constantinople: — Churches, hall type, 518; SS. 
Sergius and Bacchus, 510; St. Sophia, 510, 511; 
St. John of the Studium, 515.— Museum, 158, 
233, 234. 

Convent, capuchin, 611; of the Trinity, 519, 

Cooley, A. 8., 416. 

Corbels, under transverse beam, 154, 646, 647. 

Cornice: — Horizontal, East Portico, 12, 24, 187, 
357, 538, 544, 549, 577; North Portico, 92-93, 186, 
192, 201, 459, 576; Porch of the Maidens, 115, 130, 
203; Side Walls, 54, 186, 189; West Facade, 74-75, 
187, 189, 196, 357-358, 361-362, 539, 541, 547, 549, 
558, 577; list of blocks, 316; fragment in founda- 
tions of Temple of Rome and Augustus, 75, 224, 
479; laying of Cornice, 356-359. — Raking, 27, 76, 
94, 188, 189, 191, 192, 201, 222, 316, 578. 

Coroebus, archon, 468. 

Coronelli, plans, 535, 603. 

Cos, 461. 

Countersinking, 12, 186, 187. 

Courts, in plan of Erechtheum (?), 458, 459. 

Craterus, 434, 435, 449. 


GENERAL INDEX 665 


Crepis, 18, 309. 

Crete, hall churches in, 518; theatral area in palaces, 
18, 427. 

Cross-pieces, in roof, Main Building, 75, 76-77, 368, 
369; North Portico, 75, 96. 

Cross-Walls, interior: — East, 4, 34, 140, 142, 146- 
148, 156, 200, 223, 311, 351-352, 427, 428 544, 
569, 580. — West, Doors, 158, 161, 311; Founda- 
tions, 151, 170; Greek, 151, 152-154, 311, 312, 313; 
original plan, 167-169; Roman, 151, 156, 161, 223, 
646, 647; threshold, 152, 156; in church, 496, 497, 
499, 523; in Venetian plans, 534. 

Crostarosa, 505. 

Crypt, in North Portico, 5, 104-110, 159, 426, 431, 
483, 490, 491, 524, 547, 560, 566, 568, 569. See also 
Doorway. 

Curtius, E., 474, 570. 

Curve, 18, 24, 98, 115, 214. See also Entasis. 

Cylon, 433. 

Cyzicus, 453. 


Dabravina (Bosnia), 506. 

Dalton, R., 24, 45, 69, 72, 73, 75, 240, 527, 534, 538- 
541, 542, 547, 550, 613, 647. 

Damia, 437. 

Date, of Erechtheum, 277, 298, 452-456. 

Decelea, 453. 

Decelean War, 454. 

De la Rue, R., 534, 535, 586-587, 608, 606. 

Delos, 234, 321, 344, 451, 464, 471. 

Delphi, 85, 102, 162, 233, 234, 365, 416, 437, 465. 

Demeter, in frieze, 262, 263. 

Demetrius Poliorcetes, 474. 

Demosthenes, general, 453. 

Demosthenes, orator, 462, 463. 

Dentils, Porch of the Maidens, 115, 203. 

Diaconicum, 494, 499, 511-513, 516, 566, 580. 

Didyma, 312, 343. 

Dilettanti, Society of, 283, 543, 606. 

Dinsmoor, W. B., 72, 281, 315, 319, 323, 345, 346, 
347, 354, 361, 362, 371, 372, 373, 374, 416, 422, 
648, 649. 

Diocles, archon, 452. 

Dione, see Altar. 

Dionysus, priest of, 490. 

Diophantes, archon, 416, 461. 

Dises, 23, 83, 113-114, 203, 314, 409, 453. 

Disdar, 528, 550, 552, 553, 604, 613. 

Dodwell, E., 54, 70, 72, 93, 227, 234, 503, 540 549, 
551, 5538, 554, 555, 612, 613. 

Dorpfeld, W., 65, 75, 89, 151, 190, 224, 301, 416, 441, 
442, 455, 483; on Old Temple, 317, 432, 442, 464, 
469, 473, 488; on original plan of Erechtheum, 
168, 458-459; on Parastas, 312, 470. 

Dog, of Philochorus, 475. 

Donaldson, T. L., 85, 98, 99, 101, 227, 555. 

Door, East, 35, 44, 150, 317; Inner, 158, 161, 311, 
317; in Pandroseum (small door in North Portico), 


3, 56, 58, 97, 119, 120, 158, 168, 219, 311, 524, 542, 
547, 549, 563, 579; in Porch of the Maidens (south 
door), 48, 118-119, 129, 164, 166, 167, 170, 185, 
194, 198, 200, 216, 218, 222, 223 311, 458, 459, 
534, 545, 547, 573, 578, 606; side door in Heca- 
tompedon (?), 475; West, 56, 58-59, 97, 130, 158, 
165, 179, 311, 361, 483, 498, 496, 525, 527, 539, 
542, 569, 606. See also Doorway, North Door. 

Doorway, into Crypt, 5, 104, 110, 138, 142, 159, 180, 
183, 490, 491, 499, 560, 566, 568; in church, 494, 
496, 497, 508, 511. 

Dowels, 15, 98, 192-194, 196, 344; in church, 502, 
504; in frieze, 24, 194, 239, 242, 243, 244; wooden, 
62, 366. 

Drafted Band, 16, 56, 120, 148, 152, 199, 200. 

Dressing, of beds, 5, 186-187; of surfaces, 184, 199, 
309, 310, 349. 

Drill, 183-184. 

Duhn, F. von, 461, 531, 534, 603. 

Dukes of Athens, Latin, 519, 520, 522, 523. 

Du Moncel, Th., 561, 565. 

Dungeon in Erechtheum (?), 519. 

Durm, J., 89. 


East Cella, 4, 146-150, 459, 469, 522, 543; ancient 
statue in, 298, 311, 363, 364, 457, 458; in Pau- 
sanias, 489, 490, 492; Roof, 76, 369, 370; terrace 
of, 426-428. See also Ceiling, Orthostates, Pave- 
ment. 

East Portico, 317, 483, 484, 489, 531, 538, 557, 560, 
609, 612; Frieze, 23-24, 240, 347, 349-350, 549, 
613; Repairs, 29, 228, 561, 577, 578, 579. See also 
Antae, Ceiling, Column, Cornice, Epistyle, Foun- 
dations, Pavement, Steps, Tympanum. 

East Wall, 32-34; Epicranitis, 45, 46; irregularities 
in construction, 217, 223; Windows, 35-38, 317; 
Window linings, 38-45, 572. See also Door, 
Epistyle, Orthostates. 

Ebert, 356. 

Ebhardt, Bodo, 602. 

Elbow Stones, 58, 148, 152. 

Elderkin, G. W., 144, 235, 313, 491. 

Eleusinian Limestone, 98, 159, 181, 239, 2438, 301, 
315, 319, 344, 345, 350, 457. 

Eleusis, 255, 317, 348, 344, 350, 356, 449, 450-451, 
465, 471, 472, 475, 531. 

Elgin, Lord, 18, 52, 54, 104, 235, 545, 547, 548, 549, 
551, 552-553, 554, 595-596, 597-598, 611, 612, 613. 

Empolion, 19, 62, 112, 184, 196, 226-227. 

Encaustic, see Painting. 

Endoios, 480. 

Enneacrunos, 430. 

Entasis, 20, 66-67, 81-82, 214. 

Entrance, to Acropolis (Turkish), 70, 72, 529; to 
Pandroseum, 120-123; to Porch of the Maidens, 
110-111, 218, 496, 545, 568; to sacred precinct 
(early), 431, 442. 

Ephesus, Ionic capital from, 22. 


666 INDICES 


Epicranitis, 45, 46, 50-52, 69, 113, 175, 186, 203- 
206, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 315, 351, 533, 
539, 553, 558, 578. 

Epidaurus, 344, 365, 409, 437. 

Epigenes, decree of (?), 279-281, 300, 452, 453, 647. 

Epistatai, 299, 300, 317, 449, 454, 472, 647. 

Epistyle, East Cross-Wall, 351; East Portico, 23, 28, 
54, 192, 230, 350, 553, 577, 613; Hast Wall, 45-46, 
502, 517; North Portico, 86-87, 186, 192, 194, 198, 
200, 202, 567, 576; Porch of the Maidens, 113-114, 
185, 192, 203, 216, 219, 314, 450, 558, 561, 565, 
568, 578; Side Walls, 52-54, 302, 304, 308, 315, 
345, 502, 552; Southwest Corner, 70-72, 175-178, 
303, 307, 539, 553; West Facade, 70-73, 186, 189, 
192, 199, 200, 303, 307, 361, 539, 541, 558, 559, 
564, 577. 

Erechtheis, ‘‘sea,’ 161, 169, 171, 499, see also 
“Sea”; tribe, 373. 

Erechtheus, 244, 245, 458, 491; and Athena, 432, 
433, 436, 437, 444, 445, 446, 456, 457, 476; daugh- 
ters of, 535; temple of, 436, 437, 438, 447, 478, 534, 
543, 556. See also Poseidon-Erechtheus. 

Erichthonius, 244, 245, 256, 263, 433. 

Kteocarpathians, 461, 462. 

Eubulides, archon, 462. 

Eucleides, archon, 461, 462. 

Euktemon, archon, 277, 371. 

Eumolpus, 245. 

Kuthynteria, 15, 123, 128, 136, 183, 186. 

Extravagant Construction, 219-220. 


Fabricius, 300, 305, 359. 

Fallmerayer, 523. 

Fanelli, 534, 535, 586, 587-588, 601, 602, 603, 604. 

Fauvel, 104, 110, 227, 493, 497, 502, 526, 539, 540, 
541, 543, 544-547, 549, 550, 551, 553, 557, 563, 
591-596, 609-612. 

Ferguson, W. S., 371, 466. 

Fergusson, J., 497. 

Fetters, of Chalcidians and Boeotians, 435, 437, 448. 

File, 184. 

Fimmen, D., 281. 

Fire, traces of, 10, 34, 45, 46, 52, 66, 102, 123, 125; 
temporary repairs after, 178-180, 224, 478-479: in 
406 B.c., 101, 416, 459-461, 467, 478; in Opistho- 
domos, 462-463, 473. 

Fissures, in crypt, 104-105, 109, 487, 490-491, 568, 
569. 

Fitzwilliam Museum, see Cambridge. 

Flandin, E., 559, 561. 

Floor, see Pavement. 

Fluting (channelling), of columns, 67, 206, 309, 411- 
413; of bases, 309. 

Foot (Attic), 229, 301. 

Forchhammer, P. W., 496, 524, 558. 

Foucherot, BAB, 592, 609. 

Foundations, Fast ‘Cross- Wall, 147; East Portico, 
6-10, 144-146, 527-528, 561, 569, 574, 580; North 


Portico, 15, 104, 105, 120, 186, 524; North Wall, 
5-6, 8, 138-144, 186, 198, 217, 580; Pandroseum, 
120, 122-123, 581; Porch of the Maidens, 15, 183, 
578; South Wall, 8, 9, 10-12, 136, 181, 186, 455, 
580; Southwest Corner, 12-14, 128-130; West 
Cross-Wall, 151, 170; West Wall, 14-15, 58, 126, 
128, 163, 569, 581. 

Fourmont, 536-537, 604-606. 

Frames, wooden, in ceiling, 365, 409. 

Frickenhaus, A., 241, 301, 322, 342, 345, 346, 349, 
350, 354, 356, 357, 359, 369, 414, 433, 

Frieze: —~ Blocks, 23- 24, 28, 54, 73-74, 91, 185, 194, 
239, 240, 241, 315, 316, 523, 524, 539, 544, 549, 
576, 577, 613. ; laying of, 342-344, 347-354. See 
also Antithemata, Backers. — Sculptures, 183, 194, 
232, 239-246, 314, 457; fragments, catalogue, 246— 
270; doubtful fragments, 270-276; lost fragments, 
276; discovery, 240, 566, 572, 580; publication, 
241, 246; reconstruction, 249-244: sculptors, 245- 
246, 413-416; subjects, 244-245, 

Furtwangler, A., 234, 312, 436. 


Gabb, T., 477. 

Galleria di Minerva, 535, 587. 

Garston, E., 557. 

Gaspary, 610. 

Gauckler, 507. 

Ge, in frieze, 263. 

Gell, Sir William, 54, 70, 526, 539, 540, 548-551, 554, 
612-613. 

Gilding, 22, 82, 227, 230, 231, 409. 

Giraud, J., 528, 529, 536. 

Glass Beads, 85-86, 222, 227, 228-230, 533. 

Glue, 366. 

Gouras, 555, 557, 558. 

Graffiti, in North Portico, 518, 519, 524. 

Graindor, P., 479. 

Graves, in church, 494, 499, 501, 513, 566, 569, 580; 
outside, 494, 571, 573. 

Gregorovius, F., 520. 

Grille, 64-66, 304, 364, 370, 411. 

Gropius, 556, 557. 

Guillet, 529, 531. 

Guilloche, 38-39, 68, 82, 85-86. See also Antae, 
Base, Capital, Ooturnn: 


Habron, 478, 484. 

Hagesarchus, 461, 462. 

Hall Church, 517, 518. 

Haller von Hallerstein, 50, 85, 101, 190, 227, 551. 

Hammer, 183. 

Hansen, Chr, , 007, 559, 561, 565. 

Harem, 528. 

Harmodius, in frieze, 260. 

Heberdey, 10, 257, 322, 323, 431. 

Hecatompedon I, 425, 428, 429, 430, 432, 483, 434, 
438, 443, 444, 446. 


GENERAL INDEX 667 


Hecatompedon II, 426, 427, 475, 477, 483, 484, 489, 
490; burned (?), 416, 460, 462; euthynteria, 15, 
129, 136, 183, 428, 429; foundations (stereobate), 
15, 118, 136, 144, 181, 426, 569, 571, 573, 581; in 
inscription, 441-445; Old Temple (?), 432-438, 
446-450, 458-461, 467-470, 488; Opisthodomos 
(?), 470-474; peristyle, 15, 317, 429, 437, 448, 451, 
455; rebuilt (?), 448, 461, 463-466, 478, 489; rooms 
in, 437, 446, 470, 474; stylobate, 15, 132, 426, 428, 
429, 455, 489, 564. See also Temple (ancient). 

Hecatompedon Inscription, 435, 438-446, 471. 

Heermance, T. W., 322. 

Hegesias, 475. 

Helladic, see under Potsherds, Walls. 

Hellenotomiae, 451. 

Hellespont, 453. 

Hephaesteum, 647. 

Hephaestus, 459, 467, 478, 484. 

Hera, statues, 434. 

Heraeum, Argos, 158, 236, 434, 465. 

Hermann, H., 228. 

Herodotus, 435-448, 447. 

Hill, B. H., 317, 426, 579; on frieze, 248, 254, 258, 
259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 271, 272; on inscrip- 
tions, 298, 310, 318, 439, 440, 450, 454; on met- 
opon, 301; on painting epistyle, 410-411. 

Hill, G. F., 310. 

Hiller von Gaertringen, 304, 441, 460. 

Hobhouse, J. C., 552, 553, 554, 598. 

Hoisting of Stones, 188-190. 

Holes, drilled, 22, 23, 82-85, 89, 102, 178-179, 183. 

Holland, L. B., 150, 151, 154, 440, 442; on prehistoric 
remains, 137, 148, 146, 424, 426, 427, 428; on post- 
Persian repairs, 123, 448; restorations, 178, 307, 
351, 363, 364, 370, 409, 411. 

Holtzinger, 505. 

Homer, 431-433. 

Homolle, T., 530. 

Hondius, 454, 467. 

House, Turkish, 105, 178, 240, 492, 516, 523-528, 
544, 549, 550, 551, 554. 

Hunt, 551, 553, 597, 598. 

Hyacinthides, 535. 

Hyacinthus, 535. 


Iacchus, in frieze, 263. 

Iconostasis, 494, 503, 508-512, 566, 571, 580. 

Imhof, 565, 578. 

Inclination, 214, 216; Antae, 31, 46, 62, 86; Columns, 
19, 20, 80; Cornice, 93; Doors, 35, 59, 99, 119; 
Frieze, 91; Stylobate, 18; Walls, 34, 46, 48; Win- 
dows, 36, 37, 40, 69. 

Inscriptions, in Cecropium, 132, 133; in Erechtheum, 
513, 566, 580, 581, 593, 594, 610; Latin, 519; Turk- 
ish, 72. See also Graffiti. 

Inserted Pieces, 18, 113, 184, 206-207, 216, 308; 
catalogue of, 207-213; method of attachment, 213— 
214; Roman, 213. 


Interbeams, 27-29, 30, 87, 349, 562, 613, 646. 

Inwood, H. W., 20, 30, 38, 68, 69, 80, 85, 99, 102, 194, 
222, 492, 496, 497, 503, 554, 555, 563. 

Ionic, alphabet, 460-461; capital from Ephesus, 22; 
temple on Ilissus, 80. 

Iphicrates, statue of, 492. 

Iphistiadae, deme, 648. 

Iron, ancient use of, 103, 110, 192, 195, 196, 198, 199; 
in modern restorations, 104, 129, 176, 563, 568, 
576, 578, 579, 581; sought in walls, 553, 554, 562. 

Irregularities, in construction, 216-219, 458, 459; in 
courses, 44, 48, 50, 97, 114; in jointing, 70, 86, 148, 
152, 173, 200, 646; in spacing, 80, 112. 

Isagoras, 435. 

Ismenias, of Chalcis, 478, 484. 


Jambs, of Doors, 44, 98-99, 101-102, 103, 104, 119, 
158, 161, 164, 183, 194, 198, 200, 201, 216, 496; of 
Windows, 38-40, 42, 45, 69. 

Jenkins, W., 20. 

Joints, bevelled, 200; concealed, 205, 206, 213. 

Julius, L., 111. 

Justinian, 510, 511. 


Kabasilas, 528. 

Kaisariani (Attica), 511. 

Kalkos, P., 569. 

Kamporoglu, 520. 

Kara, Limestone, 181, 183, 455. 

Kawerau, G., 573, 575. 

Keil, B., 371, 488, 444. 

Kekulé von Stradonitz, R., 262. 

Kinnard, W..,.69, 93, 98, 181, 227, 503, 556. 
Kirchhoff, A., 280, 300, 321, 326, 359, 371, 453. 
Kohler, U., 416, 468. 

Korte, G., 487, 440, 441, 4438, 446. 

Kolbe, W., 371, 372, 373, 374. 

Komon, carpenter, 370. 

Kore, in frieze, 262. 

Kourotrophos, in frieze, 263. 


Laborde, Comte L. de, 520-521, 528, 603. 

La Coste-Messeliére, P. de, 374. 

“Ladders,” (kAtwakides), in ceiling, 365, 366, 409. 

Laloux, 20. 

Lambert, M., 573. 

Lambros, 8., 520, 522, 575. 

Lamiggiga (Algeria), 507. 

Lamp, bronze, 572; of Callimachus, 475, 476, 488. 

Lampon, 465. 

Larfeld, 450. 

Last stone laid, 62, 190. 

Lathe, 366. 

Latin (Frankish) rule, Erechtheum under, 519-520, 
528. 

Laurent, 510. 

Lead, run in to secure blocks, 6, 10, 123, 143, 217; to 
secure dowels, clamps, etc., 98, 99, 102, 110, 123, 


668 INDICES 


179, 192, 196, 199, 243, 344, 413, 578; in roof of 
Porch of the Maidens, 114-115; sought in walls, 
60, 553, 554, 556, 557, 562. 

Leake, W. M., 317. 554, 558, 560. 

Lebadeia, inscription from, 344, 356. 

Lechat, H., 365, 448, 480. 

Lecythi, Athena on, 434. 

Legrand, J. -G., 85, 596. 

Legrand, P. -E., 546. 

Lemaire, 505. 

Leo Allatius, 505. 

Leontis, 371. 

Le Roy, J. -D., 492, 542, 555, 606, 608-609. 

Lethaby, W. R., 266. 

Levels, 4, 424429. 

Lewis, for hoisting, 188-189. 

Lewis, T. H., 494, 497. 

Liber Pontificalis, 505. 

Limestone, black and white, 139, 140. See also 
Acropolis, Aeginetan, Eleusinian, Kardé, and 
Piraic Limestone, Poros. 

Lindus, 461, 462. 

Lintel, in crypt, 110; East Door, 44; East Windows, 
38-45, 102, 223, 317; Inner Doors, 158; North 
Door, 61, 98, 99-102, 103, 178, 189, 224, 496, 555; 
North Portico, small door, 58; Porch of the Maid- 
ens (south door), 48, 118-119, 195; West Door, 59, 
130, 179, 525, 527, 539. 

Liotard, J. -E., 605, 606. 

Locatelli, 85, 533, 534, 535, 587, 603, 604. 

Lolling, H. G., 342, 346, 859, 360, 648. 

Louvre, sarcophagus, 233. 

“‘Tudovisi Throne,” 255. 

Lusieri, 85, 227, 545, 552, 553, 596, 597, 598, 612, 613. 

Lycaon, 484. 

Lycomedes, 478. 

Lycophron, 478. 

Lycurgus, 478, 479. 

Lysias, 486. 


Magni, Cornelio, 529-530, 531, 585, 601. 

Maidens, see Caryatids, Porch of the Maidens. 

Malmberg, W., 233. 

Mantinea, 486. 

Mantua, 233. 

Marble, 146, 239; Parian (?) 265; Pentelic, 181, 272, 

317, 343, 345, 346, 347; Upper Pentelic, 181, 241, 

576; Proconnesus, 511. 

Mardonius, 447. 

Mark, K. L., 225. 

Mason’s Marks, 54, 72, 73, 75, 186. 

Matroneum, 505. 

Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, 245. 

Measurements, variations in, 222-223. 

Megaron, Mycenaean, 427, 428; in Herodotus, 433, 
436, 437, 4388. 

Mendel, G., 234. 

Mesopotamia, hall churches in, 518. 


Metopon, 114, 174-175, 178, 179, 301, 302, 304-306, 
307, 409. 

Metzger, E., 116, 227, 558, 559. 

Michaelis, A., 105, 300, 301, 312, 322, 342, 359, 360, 
433, 441, 442, 448, 444, 472, 483, 494, 504, 513, 514, 
524, 571, 602. 

Middleton, J. H., 38, 151. 

Milchhofer, A., 259. 

Miletus, church at, 508. 

Miller, Venetian engineer, 601. 

Minerva, see Athena. 

Mitring, 46, 69, 86, 109, 186. 

Mnesicles, 455, 464. 

Models, wax, 409. 

Mommeen, A., 450. 

Morosini, 529, 602. 

Morritt, J. B.8., 545, 551. 

Mouldings, carved, 184, 201, 302; inserted, 206-213; 
painted, 89, 175, 222, 302, 410-411; uncarved, 175, 
201-203; West Wall, 60, 61, 130, 170; wooden, in 
ceiling, 366. 

Miiller, C. O., 304, 306, 317, 528. 

Miiller, K., 322, 327. 

Munich, Glyptothek, 50, 52. 

Mutine, sloop-of-war, 553. 

Mycenaean, see Megaron, Palace, Potsherds, Seal. 

Myitasa, inscription from, 470. 

Mynnion, sculptor, 422. 

Myra, church of St. Nicholas, 512. 


Narthex, 494, 496, 499, 516. 

Nemea, church, 506, 508. 

Nemesis of Rhamnus, base of, 251. 

‘““Neos Hecatompedos” in Parthenon, 468, 472, 473. 

Neroutses, 519. 

Newton, Sir Charles, 301, 304, 310, 312, 318, 409. 

Newton, W., 542, 607. 

Niche, 46, 48, 114, 171, 172-174, 175, 176, 178, 192, 
200, 220, 223, 231, 304-307, 363-364, 409, 410, 411, 
458. 

Nicias, Peace of, 277, 454. 

Nike, 247, 248, 253, 461. See also Athena Nike, 

Temple of Athena Nike. 

Nilsson, M. P., 183, 487. 

Nointel, Marquis de, 529, 530, 536. 

Nointel Anonymous (J. Giraud), 528, 529. 

North Africa, hall churches in, 518. 

North Door, 3, 44, 59, 98-104, 166, 167, 224, 240, 
458, 459, 483, 484, 494, 496, 523-524, 533, 553, 
566; opening of valves, 103, 163, 166, 167, 169. 
See also Consoles, Jambs, Lintel, Rosettes, Sill. 

North Portico, 3, 4, 80-97, 314, 317, 426, 431, 475, 

478, 482, 483, 484, 488, 489, 490, 518-519, 523, 

524, 526, 530, 531, 5382, 533, 535, 539, 543, 547, 

548, 551, 554, 558-559, 563, 572, 601, 602, 6038, 604, 

605, 606, 607, 609; Acroteria, 97; Antefixes, 97; 

Epicranitis, 201, 208, 204, 205, 206, 533; Frieze, 

91, 241, 242, 244, 245; Opening in ceiling and roof, 


GENERAL INDEX 669 


89-91, 104, 576; Powder Magazine, 99, 104, 240, 
524, 527, 532, 533, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 561, 
563, 566, 604; Repairs, 87, 89, 92, 224, 563, 566— 
567, 576-577; Roof, 75, 95-96, 186, 189, 364, 555, 
577; Sima, 96-97, 186; Tiles, 97. See also Altar, 
Antae, Capital, Ceiling, Column, Cornice, Crypt, 
Door, Epistyle, Foundations, Pavement, Steps, 
Stylobate, Tympanum, Vault. 

North Wall, 12, 48-50, 148, 152. 154, 156, 159, 178, 
179, 187, 199-200, 214, 218, 220, 223, 426, 524, 
525, 526, 539, 544, 547, 549, 554, 557, 562, 569, 
571, 578, 646, 647; Cornice, 54, 186; Epicranitis, 
50-52, 223, 224, 647; Epistyle, 52-54; Frieze, 54, 
240, 245, 413, 414, 415. See also Foundations, 
Orthostate. 


Oath not to rebuild temples, 448. 

Old Temple, see Hecatompedon, Temple (ancient). 

Olive, sacred, 424, 425, 436, 446, 457, 458, 448, 491, 
492; newly planted, 581. 

“‘Olive-tree pediment,” 429-431. 

Olympia, 238, 239, 486, 501, 506, 51¢. 

Olympiodorus, 480. 

Omont, H., 530, 604. 

Opisthodomos, 452, 462-463, 465, 466, 470-474. 

Opposition, conservative, 459, 463-465. 

Oropos, inscription from, 305. 

Orthostate, 309; Cross-Walls, 148, 156, 161; East 
Wall, 32, 148-150, 194; North Wall, 48, 58, 148, 
152, 156, 159, 200, 218, 220, 223, 426, 524, 525, 
562; Pandroseum, 120; South Wall, 48, 118, 119, 
129, 148, 152, 156, 158, 166, 185, 190, 199, 218, 
309, 513, 524, 547, 564, 580; West Wall, 56-58, 128, 
223. 

Orvieto, 466. 


Paccard, A., 567. 

Paeonius, 238. 

Painting, of Butadae, 478, 484, 489, 491; in church, 
493, 512; Kast Portico, 30, 222, 230; encaustic, 89, 
220, 368, 410; interior mouldings, 50, 175, 176, 
222, 302, 307, 363, 364, 365, 368, 410-411; North 
Portico, 89, 94, 222, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231; Porch 
of the Maidens, 112, 114, 116, 222, 228, 230, 231; 
stucco, 220, 231; tempera, 368. See also Color. 

Palace, Mycenaean, 136, 425, 427, 428, 429, 442, 
446; of Latin Dukes, 519, 520, 523. 

“Palladis Minervae,” 477. 

Pallat, L., 241, 242, 248, 244, 245, 246, 414, 415. 

Panagiotakis, A., 258, 266. 

Panathenaea, 414, 450. 

Pandionis, 371. 

Pandroseum, 56, 119-127, 134, 137, 142, 308, 317, 
416, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 436, 445, 458, 
460, 464, 474, 475, 483, 488, 489, 492, 523, 539, 
542, 549, 555, 578, 581; cemetery in, 494, 571, 573; 
early remains in, 120-123, 125-127, 142, 198, 425, 
443, 448; identified with Porch of the Maidens, 


543, 545; water channel in, 122, 123-125, 200, 571, 
581. 

Pandrosus, 256, 263, 467; shrine of, 119, 130, 431, 
488, 492, 530, 531, 532, 534, 545, 606, 609. 

Parastas, 311, 312, 313, 314, 458, 468, 469-470. 

Parenzo, cathedral, 510. 

Pars, W., 54, 147, 240, 526, 539, 541, 548-544, 555, 
562, 613. 

Parthenon, 35, 74, 79, 244, 245, 246, 272, 299, 437, 
444.446, 448, 454, 455, 461, 463, 465, 466, 468, 
475, 480, 492, 493, 496, 516, 520, 523, 529, 531, 
532, 533, 538, 557, 560, 649; Opisthodomos in, 471, 
472, 473, 474; “ Parthenon” in, 468, 472, 473, 474; 
pre-Persian, 434, 445, 448. See also ‘Neos Heca- 
tompedos,”’ Pronaos. 

Parthenos, statue, 467, 492. 

Paton, J. M., 266, 450. 

Paulinus, 505. 

Pausanias, 105, 119, 456, 459, 465, 478, 479-492, 530, 
531, 534, 606, 607, 608, 609; entrance, 483, 489, 
490; interior, in, 484, 486, 487, 488, 491, 492; text 
and translation, 480-482; value, 479, 480, 482. 

Pavement, East Cella, 150; East Portico, 18, 494, 
561, 562; east of North Portico, 15-18, 198, 200, 
427, 448, 571, 574; Central Rooms, 156, 158-159; 
church, 240, 272, 493, 499, 501, 502, 513, 545, 566, 
570, 571, 580; North Portico, 18, 104-109, 483, 
487, 490, 560, 566; Pandroseum, 56, 125, 127, 425, 
426, 427, 448, 581; Porch of the Maidens, 116-118, 
130, 184; West Room (Prostomiaion), 158, 161- 
164, 168, 169, 195. 

Payments reported in inscriptions, channelling col- 
umns, 411-413; day labor, 409, 410, 422, 650; 
figures of frieze, 246, 4138-415; grilles, 64, 370; 
painting, 363, 368, 410; stonework, 342, 344, 345, 
346, 347, 356, 359; summary in 408/7 B.c., 404— 
408; tiles, 369, 370; wax models, 407; woodwork, 
354, 356, 366. 

Pediments, 359-362, 530, 576, 578. See also “ Olive- 
tree Pediment,’’ Tympanum. 

Pelargicon, 465. 

Peloponnesian War, 454, 464, 473, 647. 

Pennethorne, J., 231. 

Penrose, F. C., 6, 80, 81, 82, 93, 114, 151, 161, 218, 
497. 

Peplos, 450. 

Pergamon, 259. 

Pericles, 448, 454, 464, 465. 

Perry, C., 590, 606. 

“« Perserschutt,” 448. 

Persian Invasion, 125, 148, 146, 483, 436, 439, 445, 
446, 447, 448, 449, 451, 452, 457, 460, 463, 470, 
A74, 488. 

Petersen, E., 235, 310, 311, 312, 313, 363, 483, 440, 
441, 443, 444, 470, 474, 477, 478. 

Petrograd, caryatid, 233. 

Phantocles, 497. 

Pharnabazus, 462. 


670 INDICES 


Phidias, 238, 464, 467, 475. 

Philadelphus, 520. 

Philippos, 649. 

Philochorus, 150, 474, 475. 

Philokles, architect, 300. 

Phyromachos, sculptor, 414, 415. 

Pier, in church, 138, 139, 140, 504, 516-517, 569, 580; 
at southwest corner of North Portico, see Antae 
(North Portico). 

Pilaster, in church, 496, 497, 504; in Hast Cella (?), 
469; in Hecatompedon, 469; in original plan, 458; 
under transverse beam, 646, 647; on West Cross- 
Wall, 312; on West Wall, 62, 65, 69, 308. See also 
Metopon, Niche. 

Pins (metal), in Frieze, 248, in inserted pieces, 207, 
210, 211, 213, 214; in North Portico, 82-85; in 
Porch of the Maidens, 112, 114, 183, 195-196. 

Piraeus, 305, 475. See also Arsenal. 

Piraic Limestone, 181, 350, 578. See also Poros. 

Piscatory, 567. 

Pisistratus, 432, 483, 444. 

Pittakis, 48, 51, 61, 129, 228, 280, 376, 493, 497, 499, 
518, 518, 519, 520, 557, 558, 561, 563, 564, 565, 
566, 569, 572, 574, 578, 579, 580. 

Plan of Erechtheum, 3; changes in, 167-169, 173, 
174, 175, 458-459, 464; by Ballu, 566; by Fauvel, 
045, 546, 610; by Lambert, 573; by Le Roy, 609; 
by Pococke, 538, 606; by Tétaz, 494, 516, 566, 568, 
573; by Venetians, 533, 544, 601-603. 

Plutarch, 464. 

Plutus, 473. 

Plynteria, 450. 

Pococke, R., 537, 538, 589, 606. 

Podium, at northeast corner, 16, 220, 561. See also 
Porch of the Maidens. 

Polemon, 475. 

Polos, 196. 

Polyclitus, 434. 

Polyxena, 480. 

Pomardi, 553. 

Porch of the Maidens, 3, 110-119, 129, 130, 136, 168, 
195, 198, 199, 203, 213, 301, 314, 317, 453, 455, 
458, 464, 475, 483, 523; Acroteria, 115; in church, 
496; Epicranitis, 69, 113; Podium, 110-111, 128, 
129, 130, 182, 183, 168, 185, 186, 193, 195, 198, 
202, 216, 218, 219, 496, 523, 539, 540, 541, 545, 
568, 578; Roof, 114-115, 130, 132, 187, 188, 189, 
192, 194, 196, 198, 219, 222 , B44. 453, 459, 539, 
544, 558, 559, 560, 561, 564, eae 572, 578; Stairs 
in, 116, 118, 130, 164, 166, 168, 192, 218, 545; 
walled up, 524, 534, 537, 550, 551, 553; in seven- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries, 482, 531, 535, 
536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 543, 544, 546, 549, 602- 
607, 609, 610, 612; before the Greek Revolution, 
552, 553, 554, 555, BBS, 560; restoration, 565, 567, 
568, 569, 578. Re also Antae, Caryatids, Coflen 
Cornice, Dentils, Discs, Door, Epistyle, F ounda- 
tions, Painting, Pavement, Steps. 


Poros, bases, 427-428; in church, 8, 496, 499, 501; 
in foundations, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 140, 141, 142- 
143, 144-146, 151-152; in Pandroseum, 120, 122, 
123, 125, 126, 142; under marble pavement east 
of North Portico, 15-16, 448, 571, 574, 581; in old 
pediment, 429-431; thin blocks of, 6, 142-143. 
See also Aeginetan Limestone, Backers, Piraic 
Limestone. 

Poseidon, 424, 436, 446, 478, 486, 488, 490, 491, 534. 
See also “Sea,” Trident Mark. 

Poseidon-Erechtheus, 3, 459, 467, 478, 479, 484, 572. 

Potsherds, Attic, fifth century, 126; Byzantine, 12; 
Helladic, 122, 126, 141, 581; Mycenaean, 580, 581; 
Roman, 151. 

Pour Channel, 193, 196. 

Powder Magazine, in Temple of Nike, 532. See also 
North Portico (Powder Magazine). 

Praxias, sculptor, 414, 415, 416. 

Praxiergidae, 450. 

Praxiteles, sons of, 478. 

Préaulx (Préaux), M. -F., 547, 548. 

Pre-Erechtheum, conditions, inside, 10, 138-14, 137- 
142, 143-146, 151; in Cecropium, 136-137; in 
Pandroseum, 120-123, 125, 126; outside, 424-429, 
446-447, 451-452. 

Presbyterium, 505. 

Probalinthus, 649. 

Procne, 238, 276. 

Proconnesus, 511. 

Prokesch von Osten, A., 93, 493, 557, 558. 

Promachos, 442. 

Pronaos, of Parthenon, 472. 

Propylaea, 35, 44, 79, 115, 152, 159, 299, 309, 362, 
369, 455, 464, 492, 520, 521, 522, 528, 529, 530, 
032, 545, 546, 557, 560. 

Propylon (apomvaAcv), 440, 441, 442, 444. 


-Prostomiaion (West Room), 161, 164, 179, 217, 311, 


312-313, 317, 456, 458, 475, 488, 490, 491, 494, 
496, 517, 523; original plan, 167-169. See also 
Bench, Cistern, Pavement. 

Protecting Surface (Werkzoll), 119, 175, 200. 

Protection of edges (Randbeschlag), 185, 200. 

Prothesis of church, 138, 140, 141, 148, 494, 511, 513, 
516, 517, 580. 

Pry Holes, 190-191. 

Purlins, East Roof, 76, 355; West Roof, 74-75, 76, 
154, 355, 647. 

Puteal (rpoordoutov), over ‘sea 
313, 487, 491, 496. 

Ptolemy VI, Philometor I, 466. 

Pyromachus, sculptor, 415. 

Pythia, 437, 465. 


,” 168, 170, 171, 312, 


Quast, A. von, 493, 528. 


Rafters, Main Building, 75, 76-77, 355, 356, 368- 
369; North Portico, 75, 96. 
“ Randbeschlag,” see Protection of edges. 


GENERAL INDEX 671 


Rangabé, A. R., 100, 101, 102, 116, 228, 230, 240, 
241, 256, 276, 280, 371, 492, 493, 499, 502, 514, 
524, 558, 561, 568. 

Ravenna, “Palace of Theodoric,”’ 511; 8. Apol- 
linare in Classe, 510, 515; 8. Apollinare Nuovo, 
510, 511, 515; 8. Vitale, 510, 511. 

Reinach, A. -J., 478. 

Reitos, bridge over, 449. 

Relief of pressure, 38, 159, 164, 167, 176, 185, 206. 

Relief work for poor, 453. 

Repairs: — Greek, post-Persian, 125, 143, 424, 425, 
448; after fire, 178-180, 416, 460-461, 479. — 
Roman, 178, 179, 183, 184, 196, 199, 223-224, 478- 
479; East Portico, 28, 29, 45, 222; Interior, 148, 
151, 156, 159, 161, 162, 167, 172, 175, 496; North 
Door, 59, 61, 99-103, 178, 189, 204, 213; North 
Portico, 87, 89, 92, 94, 97, 186, 576; Porch of the 
Maidens (?), 119; Side Walls, 51, 52, 53, 54, 79, 
186, 302; West Facade, 24, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 
66-69, 70-74, 75-76, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192, 200, 
203, 204, 213, 240, 304, 308. — 1837-1847 (Pit- 
takis), 30, 48, 51, 61, 110, 129, 492, 493, 497, 513, 
527, 559, 561-568, 574, 578, 579, 580. — 1903- 
1922 (Balanos), 576-580; Cistern, 15, 169, 578- 
579; East Portico, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 577-578, 
579; North Portico, 89, 92, 104, 181, 524, 576-577, 
579; Pandroseum, 581; Porch of the Maidens, 13, 
14, 111, 113, 206, 578, 580; Side Walls, 50, 51, 52, 
176, 303, 578; West Facade, 15, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 
70, 74, 129, 577, 579. 

Report of 409 B.c., 52, 107, 113, 158, 161, 171, 175, 
236, 377, 280-283, 351, 452, 453, 454, 457, 469, 
543; bibliography, 283-285; text and translation, 
286-299; contents, 300-301. See also Commission 
of 409 B.c. 

Revetment, in church, 504. 

Revett, N., 541, 542, 548, 590, 591. See also Stuart 
and Revett. 

Rey, E., 557, 559, 561. 

Rhamnus, temple at, 465. 

Rhodes, 461, 462. 

Richardson, C. I., 229. 

Ridge Beam, 75, 76, 95, 354, 355. 

Rivoira, G., 505. 

Robert, C., 240-241, 245, 259, 371, 414, 415, 480. 

Rome, churches in, 457, 505, 506, 507, 510, 518; 
pluteus in, 510, 511. 

Ronezewski, K., 233. 

Roof, Main Building, 74, 75, 76-77, 154, 354-356; 
Pandroseum, entrance, 120; temporary, 179-180; 
construction, 368-370; in church, 515-516. See 
also Cross-pieces, North Portico, Porch of the 
Maidens, Purlins, Rafters, Ridge Beam, Sima, 
Tiles. 

Rosettes, Ceiling, 89, 364, 408, 409; North Door, 101 
102, 183; Porch of the Maidens, see Discs. 

Ross, L., 280, 284, 376, 520, 521, 534, 557, 558, 560, 
561, 563, 564, 565, 573. 


Saint Luke of Stiris, church (Phocis), 510, 512. 

Salonica, see Thessalonica. 

Sanctuary, of church, 513. 

Sandwich, Earl of, 537, 539, 588-589, 605-606. 

San Felice, Conte di, 534, 535, 602. 

“Scamilli impares,” 93. 

Scarp, below south wall, 10. 

Schaubert, E., 100, 101, 527. 

Schoene, R., on frieze, 241, 249, 251, 252, 259, 264, 
268; on inscriptions, 317, 343, 344, 345, 346. 

“School of the Epicureans,” 520, 521, 522. 

“School of the Musicians,’’ 520, 522. 

Schroder, B., 238, 272, 276. 

Schultz, R. W., 38, 101, 575. 

Schultze, 505. 

Scratched Lines, 18-19, 24, 91, 112, 122, 125, 162, 
167, 175, 185-186, 222. 

Scrofani, 8., 532. 

Sculptors, of frieze, 245, 246, 406, 414-416. 

“Sea,” of Poseidon, 14, 168, 169-171, 172, 217, 312- 
313, 424, 425, 436, 444, 446, 447, 456, 457, 458, 
483, 487, 490-491, 492, 496, 499, 531, 543, 573, 
604, 609, 610. 

Seal, Mycenaean, 580. 

Securing Stones, methods of, 192-199. 

Semper, G., 498, 503, 558, 559. 

Serpent, sacred, 435, 456, 486, 491. 

Setting Stones, methods of, 190-192, 344. 

Shaft, in southwest corner, 170. 

Sharpe, R. H., 99, 555. 

Sheathing, wooden, on roofs, 368-369. For stone 
sheathing, see Slabs. 

Shelf in Niche, 170, 171-172, 174, 178, 179, 304, 306, 
364, 410, 458. 

Shift Holes, 191-192. 

Siagu (Tunis), 507. 

Sicilian Expedition, 277, 453, 454. 

Sicyon, 486. 

Siege of Acropolis; in 1687, 526, 533; in 1821, 556; in 
1826, 61, 113, 557-559. 

Sill, East Door, 150; East Windows, 45; North Door, 
56, 103-104, 150, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 
185, 496, 523, 573; North Portico, small door, 56, 
97; 120; Pandroseum, early, 123; Porch of the 
Maidens, 12, 18, 111, 119, 129, 185, 496; Sanc- 
tuary of church, 494, 508, 511; Stone Doors, 158, 
159; West Cross-Wall, 152, 156, 162, 494, 523; 
West Door, 59, 165, 496. 

Sima, 78-79, 96-97, 370. 

Skene, J., 497, 557, 559, 561, 565, 566. 

Slabs, thin, 48, 50, 87, 114, 119, 178, 192, 499, 504, 
646, 647. See also Shelf in Niche, Poros (thin 
blocks). 

Smikythos, 647, 648. 

Smirke, R., 526, 548, 555. 

Smith, A. H., 552, 553. 

Smoke Stains, 227. 

Smyrna, 470, 530, 544, 611. 


672 INDICES 


Soane, Sir John, Museum, 270. 

Sosipolis, 486. 

South Door, see Door (Porch of the Maidens). 

South Wall, 46, 48, 114, 118, 119, 152, 154, 156, 178, 
179, 185, 186, 187, 190, 199, 200, 218, 222-223, 
308, 309, 342, 525, 526, 538-539, 540, 544, 547, 
549, 554, 556, 557, 564, 578, 647; Cornice, 54; 
Epicranitis, 50-52, 547, 580; Epistyle, 52-54, 552; 
Frieze, 54, 315, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350-353, 552. 
See also Foundations, Orthostates, Southwest 
Corner. 

Southwest Corner, 12-14, 51, 58, 61, 118, 116, 128- 
130, 170, 178, 179, 201, 301-308, 361-362, 553, 
558, 564, 574, 578. See also Cecropium, Niche. 

Sparta, temple at, 486. 

Specifications, fragments of, 319-321. 

“Spline,” 114. 

Spon, J., 479, 492, 523, 526, 528, 529, 530-532, 534, 
535, 536, 538, 585-586, 601, 604. 

Squares, interlaced, 509, 510, 511. 

Statue, ancient (apxatoyv ayadua), pre-Erechtheum, 
433, 434, 444, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450; in Erech- 
theum, 298, 299, 310, 311, 363, 364, 452, 454, 
456-457, 460, 463, 466, 467, 468, 470, 487, 488, 
492; in Hecatompedon (?), 458, 459, 463, 465, 466, 
467, 488. 

Statues, of Lycurgus and his sons, 478. 

Stephani, L., 241, 249, 251. 

Steps, 18, 185, 309; down from eastern terrace, 16- 
18, 200, 216, 220, 561-562, 571, 574; East Portico, 
18, 194, 216, 220, 561; North Portico, 15, 120, 122, 
123, 194, 200, 216, 218, 220, 425, 571; North Wall, 
15, 16, 216; Porch of the Maidens, 111, 132, 134, 
194, 218, 496, 539, 546, 568; South Wall, 564; 
West Wall, 56, 165, 166, 168, 569, 581. See also 
Bench, Pavement, Porch of the Maidens (stairs), 
Stylobate. 

Stevens, G. P., 30, 194. 

Stoa, at Assos, 65; of Attalus, 65; of Artemis Brau- 
ronia, 314, 466; in inscriptions, 314, 317; in Vienna 
Anonymous, 520, 521, 522. 

Storm of 1852, 570. 

Strabo, 465, 475-476. 

Strack, J. H., 570. 

Straight4edge, 344, 356. 

String Course, on west wall, 60, 61, 217. 

Strongylion, 238. 

Struts, 76, 154, 355, 356, 363, 646-647. 

Strzygowski, J., 506, 508, 511. 

Stuart and Revett, 68, 69, 75, 112, 115, 216, 240, 
483, 484, 492, 496, 540, 541-542, 543, 550, 562, 
590, 606, 607, 608, 613. 

Stucco in Niche, 220, 231. 

Stylobate, 18, 309; early, in Pandroseum, 126; East 
Portico, 18, 19, 31, 194, 214, 216; North Portico, 
105, 216, 218, 425, See ‘also Hecatompedon ie 

Suidas, 535. 

Sulla, 475. 

Sunium, temples, 477. 


Sutri, Madonna del Parto, 506, 507. 
Sybel, L. von, 262. 

Symphorius Amalarius, 505. 
Synegrapheis, 648. 

Syracuse, 453. 

Syria, hall churches in, 517, 518. 


T-Dowels, 18, 35-36, 94, 98, 152, 194-195, 216, 217, 
455. 

Taylor, G. L., 555. 

Temenos, see ‘‘Tokens,’’ Cecropium. 

Temple, ancient (apxatos vews), 448, 449, 450, 452, 
465, 466, 467, 468, 475, 476; burned, 416, 460; 
Erechtheum (?), 457, 465, 466, 470, 475, 478; 
Hecatompedon (?), 458, 459, 463, 466, 470, 474, 
478, 488, 489; Homeric, 432-433, 434, 435, 437, 
438, 446, 447, 456; pre-Persian, 436, 437, 438, 441, 
442-445, 446-447; rebuilt, 448, 451, 461, 462; on 
site of East Cella, 481, 444, 457, 465, 467. 

Temple, of Aphaia (Aegina), 350; of Aphrodite 
Morpho (Sparta), 486; of Apollo (Carpathos), 461, 
(Delphi), 465, (Didyma), 312, 343; of Artemis 
(Brauron), 466; of Asclepius (Sicyon), 486; of 
Athena (Acropolis), 244, 475, 477, 478, 489, 490, 
492, see also Hecatompedon, Temple (ancient), of 
Athena Polias; of Athena (Sunium), 477; of 
Athena Nike, 244, 246, 248, 250, 271, 299, 376, 
454, 464, 520, 522, 531, 532, 560; of Athena Polias, 
3, 280, 281, 458, 459, 466, 475, 478, 488, 531, 534, 
535, 543, 556, 557, 662, 603, 606, 609; of Castor in 
the Circus (Rome), 477; of Erechtheus, see Erech- 
theus; of Dionysus Eleuthereus, 434, 454, 465; 
Ionic on Ilissus, 80; of Poseidon, 602, 603, (Su- 
nium), 477; of Rome and Augustus (Acropolis), 
75, 178, 224, 479, 520, 521; of the “Unknown 
God,” 529; of Zeus (Lebadeia), 344. 

Temple, Sir Grenville, 553. 

Terrace, Cecropium, 136; East Cella, 143, 148, 426- 
427, 444, 447; Hecatompedon, 134, 136, 446, 489, 
539; Levels, 424-429: in the original plan (Dérp- 
feld), 458, 459. . 

Tétaz, J. -M., 86, 101, 104, 230-231, 493, 501, 514, 
516, 564, 566, 568, 573. 

Thargelion, 450. 

Theatre of Dionysus, 255, 318, 480, 484, 490. 

Themis, in frieze, 263. 

Themistocles, 461; sons of, 480. 

Theotokou (Thessaly), church, 506. 

Theseum, 28, 30, 74, 244, 493, 518, 545, 546. 

Thessalonica, 233, 510, 515. 

Thiersch, F., 50, 317, 501, 524, 528, 558, 559, 569. 

“The Thirty, a AA5, 

Threshold, see Sill. 

Throne, 318, 484-485, 490, 494. 

Thirmer, J., 554, 555. 

Thunderbolt, marks of, 105, 491. 

Thyechoiis, see Altar. 

Tiles, Main Building, 76, 77, 79, 369, 370; North 
Portico, 91, 96, 97; laying of, 368-370. 


GENERAL 


Timarchus, 478. 

Tiryns, 428, 434. 

“Tokens,” (waptipia), 424, 425-427, 428, 431, 436, 
443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 454, 458, 486, 488. 

Tongs, for hoisting stones, 189, 190. 

Tools, 182-184. 

Toscanella, church of 8. Pietro, 507. 

Tower, in Propylaea, 521. 

Tralles, 233, 234. 

“Transenna’”’ Pattern, 509, 510. 

Transverse Beam, 76, 154, 167, 168, 351, 355, 363, 
408, 411, 646-647. 

Treasurers of Athena, 451, 461, 462, 468, 471, 472, 
473, 647, 649; of the other gods, 462, 467, 471. 
Treasury, on Acropolis, 450, 451, 452, 462, 463, 471. 

Triangles, inverted, 509, 510, 511. 

“Trident Mark,” 105, 424, 425, 426, 431, 456, 483, 
487, 489, 490, 491, 492, 566, 568. 

Troezen, inscription, 343. 

Troilus, 430. 

Troy, sack of, in frieze, 264. 

Turkish, battery, 376; entrance to Acropolis, 70, 72, 
529. See also Alterations, House, Inscriptions. 
Turks, occupy Athens, (1458), 523, (1688), 536, 
(1826-1833), 556, 557, 559, 560; search for “well,” 

499, 610. 

Tweddell, J., 548. 

Tympanum, East Portico, 24-27, 316, 317, 359, 360; 
North Portico, 93-94, 189, 190, 194, 218, 539, 555; 
West Facade, 75-76, 316, 317, 360-362. 

Tyrannenschutt, 429. 


Unfinished Surfaces, 58, 70, 86, 180, 150, 152, 166, 
199-200, 308-310. See also Bosses, Mouldings 
(uncarved). 

Unger, 371. 

Usener, H., 371. 


Valpolicella, San Giorgio, 515. 

Variations, in measurements, 222-223. 

Vatican, caryatid, 234. 

Vault, over inner cistern, 496, 523, 566, 570, 573; 
over outer cistern, 524, 560; over powder maga- 
zine, 99, 240, 498, 524, 532, 555, 557, 558, 559, 
566. 

Venetian, descriptions and plans, 531, 533-536, 601— 
604; siege and occupation, 526, 527, 532, 533, 536, 
565. 

Venice, caryatid, 233, 234; San Marco, 510. 

Verneda, G. M., Venetian engineer, 531, 532, 534, 
535, 586, 601-602, 603, 604. 

Vernon, Sir Francis, 529, 530, 585, 601. 

Vienna Anonymous, 492, 520-522. 

Vitruvius, 3, 465, 476-478. 

Volute, East Portico, 20-23, 183, 207; North Portico, 
82, 84-85; West Facade, 68. 


Wachsmuth, C., 521, 522. 
Wallace, W., 225. 


INDEX 673 


Walls, Cecropium, 132-134; Interior, 310-314; 
Longitudinal, inner, 156-158, 159, 311, 312, 313, 
314; Mediaeval and Turkish, 13, 540; 549, 550; 
Pandroseum, 120, 123, 125, 574, 581; Pre-historic, 
13-14, 126, 129, 187, 188-142, 143, 144, 145-146, 
147-148, 424, 427, 428, 429, 447, 570. See also 
Aisle Walls, Cross-Walls, East Wall, North Wall, 
South Wall, West Facade. 

Washburn, O. M., 310, 322, 345, 346. 

Water-channel, in North Portico, 105; east of North 
Portico (?), 571, 574; in Pandroseum, 122, 123- 
125, 127, 200, 571, 581; wooden (6xer6s), 356, 422, 
461. 

Weather Marks, 26, 69-70, 97, 109, 159, 164, 176, 
187-188, 243. 

Wedges, iron, in lintel of North Door, 100. 

Weissmann, K., 242, 414. 

Werkzoll, see Protecting Surface. 

West, A. B., 648. 

West Division of Erechtheum, 4, 151-169, 311-314, 
410-411. See also Ceiling, Central Rooms, Pro- 
stomiaion, Roof. 

West Facade, Base Course between columns, 60-61, 
130, 170, 185, 196, 217; Freize, 73-74, 186, 196, 
240, 5389, 541, 547, 549, 577; original plan, 137, 
167-169, 458-459; Wall (below columns), 56, 58, 
103, 116, 118, 128, 129, 130, 161, 162, 163, 164, 
165, 167, 168, 169, 192, 199, 525, 527, 547, 558, 
563, 573, 574; (intercolumnar), 63-64, 66, 69, 171, 
189, 547, 558, 564, 577; Windows, 68, 69, 189, 192, 
516, 534, 539, 542, 547, 556, 558, 564, 577. See 
also Antae, Columns, Cornice, Door, Epistyle, 
Foundations, Grille, String Course, Tympanum. 

West Room, see Prostoniaion. 

Wheler, Sir George, 528, 530-532, 586, 601, 604. 

White, J. W., 4387, 443, 474. 

Wilhelm, A., 280, 440, 441, 450, 648. 

Wilkins, W., 93, 182, 301, 543, 545, 552, 554, 596, 
597, 600. 

Williams, H. W., 547, 554, 555. 

Windows, in church, 493, 513-515. See also East 
Wall, West Facade. 

Wolfe, J. L., 84, 85, 86, 101, 112, 182, 227, 555, 598— 
600. 

Wolfensberger, J. J., 559. 

Wolters, P., 441. 

Wood, H. D., 369. 

Woods, J., 48, 182, 514, 542, 555, 607. 

Woodwork, 354-356. See also Ceilings, Mouldings. 

Wordsworth, C., 560. 

Wyse, Sir Thomas, 570. 


Xenophon, 460, 462, 463, 466. 
Xerxes, 435, 486, 447, 448, 471. 


Zana (Algeria), 506. 

Zenica (Bosnia), 506. 

Zeus, in frieze, 251; Hypatos, 105, 318, 490, 491; 
Polieus, 442, 490. 


sry caus LIBRARY 


wil 


HM 


